From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rochester Gas Electric Corp. v. Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 10, 1999
258 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 10, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Dismiss Pleading.

PRESENT: DENMAN, P. J., GREEN, PINE, HAYES AND CALLAHAN, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injury to its property allegedly resulting from a break in defendant's water main in 1994. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the Statute of Limitations ( see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The action was commenced in 1997, more than one year and 90 days "after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based", i.e., the water main break in 1994 (General Municipal Law § 50-i [c]; see, Nebbia v. County of Monroe, 92 A.D.2d 724, 725, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 603). We reject plaintiff's contention that the time to commence the action should be computed from the date of discovery of the injury pursuant to CPLR 214-c (3). "While CPLR 214-c does nominally cover situations where a plaintiff is injured due to 'contact' with a 'substance,' it is plain from reading the statute as a whole that the types of substances intended to be covered are toxic substances" ( Blanco v. American Tel. Tel. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 757, 767, rearg denied 91 N.Y.2d 922). Water is not a toxic substance, and the discovery rule of CPLR 214-c is therefore inapplicable to this action ( see, Blanco v. American Tel. Tel. Co., supra, at 767; Martzloff v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 115, 116-117, lv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 935, Noce v. Wilmorite, Inc., 166 Misc.2d 103, 106-107).


Summaries of

Rochester Gas Electric Corp. v. Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 10, 1999
258 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Rochester Gas Electric Corp. v. Rochester

Case Details

Full title:ROCHESTER GAS ELECTRIC CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 533

Citing Cases

Verizon N.Y. Inc. v. Con. Ed., Inc.

that it is intended to cover injury or damage resulting from exposure to toxic substances]; see also…

Patterson v. City of New York

Contrary to the Supreme Court, we conclude that it should not. As the Court of Appeals stated in Blanco v.…