From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Donaldson Acous. v. Inst. of Tech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the arbitration is permanently stayed.

In October 1988 the petitioner Donaldson Acoustics, Inc. (hereinafter Donaldson) and the respondent New York Institute of Technology (hereinafter NYIT) entered into a contract whereby Donaldson agreed to perform certain work at a library on NYIT's campus. Donaldson commenced work on the library in or about December 1988, and made its final request for payment in or about May 7, 1990. NYIT approved final payment on May 18, 1990, and issued final payment in August 1990. According to Donaldson, it last performed work on the library "during the week ending March 20, 1990".

On or about May 9, 1996, NYIT served Donaldson with a Demand for Arbitration alleging that it had breached the construction contract. Donaldson commenced the instant proceeding to stay arbitration of NYIT's claim on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Supreme Court granted NYIT's motion to dismiss the petition. We reverse.

Under New York law the issue of whether NYIT's claim is time barred is properly determined by the court in the instant proceeding ( see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193, 201-202, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, 516 U.S. 811). In making this threshold determination, "the courts must apply the same period of limitations in arbitration that would govern if an action were brought on the claim being arbitrated" ( Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, supra, at 206-207). Here, the applicable period of limitations is six years ( see, CPLR 213).

"[I]n construction contract cases, the completion of construction is the accrual date for an owner's claims against a general contractor arising from defective construction ( see, State of New York v. Lundin, 60 N.Y.2d 987; Phillips Constr. Co. v. City of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 949)" ( Mastropieri v. Solmar Constr. Co., 159 A.D.2d 698, 699; see, Middle Country Cent. School Dist. v. O'Healy Constr. Corp., 230 A.D.2d 777, 778; Forest Med. Professional Condominium v. Tiburzi, 214 A.D.2d 962, 963). The record contains sufficient evidence demonstrating that Donaldson completed its construction on the subject project more than six years before NYIT served its demand for arbitration. Thus, NYIT's demand for arbitration is time-barred.

Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Donaldson Acous. v. Inst. of Tech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Donaldson Acous. v. Inst. of Tech

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DONALDSON ACOUSTICS, INC., Appellant, v. NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Apr 13, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 114

Citing Cases

Splinters v. Greenfield

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint…