From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Verizon-New York v. Reckson Associates Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 2005
19 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5181.

June 28, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered September 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Reckson Associates Realty Corp.'s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Law Office of Steven G. Fauth, New York (Jason B. Rosenfarb of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, New York (Gail Blumenthal of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.


A review of the record reveals that defendant produced sufficient evidence to establish that the property damage at issue existed as of April 1999, rendering this action, commenced in June 2002, time-barred ( see CPLR 214; Cast the Sleeping Elephant Trust v. Friends World Coll., 210 AD2d 122, 123, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 86 NY2d 759). Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff's argument, the claim accrued upon the date of injury, and not upon discovery of the damage ( see Manhattanville Coll. v. Romeo Consulting Engr, 5 AD3d 637, 641; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Hunter Turbo Corp., 241 AD2d 505, 506).


Summaries of

Verizon-New York v. Reckson Associates Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 2005
19 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Verizon-New York v. Reckson Associates Realty

Case Details

Full title:VERIZON-NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
796 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

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

As noted above, Con Edison asserts that general limitations provision in CPLR 214 (4) for actions to recover…

Troy-Mckoy v. Israel

This action, commenced June 22, 2018, is barred by the three-year limitations period for destruction of…