From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armenia v. Carini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations. More than 14 years elapsed between the construction of the building designed by defendants and the commencement of the action based upon negligent design. "It is well settled that an owner's claim against an architect arising out of alleged defective construction of a building, however denominated, accrues for purposes of the Statute of Limitations upon completion of the construction" (Farash Constr. Corp. v Stanndco Developers, 139 A.D.2d 899, 900, lv dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 918; see also, Phillips Constr. Co. v City of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 949; State of New York v Lundin, 60 N.Y.2d 987; Sears, Roebuck Co. v Enco Assocs., 43 N.Y.2d 389).


Summaries of

Armenia v. Carini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Armenia v. Carini

Case Details

Full title:CARMELO S. ARMENIA et al., Respondents, v. LOUIE CARINI et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 7, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
572 N.Y.S.2d 205

Citing Cases

Lopez v. Pathmark Supermarket, Inc.

Thus, the action was subject to dismissal when the appellant brought its motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 (e)…

HARBOUR POINTE v. MARRANO/MARC EQUITY

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the first cause of action in plaintiff's amended complaint.…