Concrete Construction Corp. v. Commercial Union Insurance
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 25, 1978, granting in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action as barred by Statute of Limitations and the third cause of action as not within the terms of the payment bond and denying the motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements on the appeal. Plaintiff, subcontractor to Lasker-Goldman Corp., seeks to recover from defendant as surety on bonds issued for the construction of facilities at the State University of New York at New Paltz and at Barnard College. We are in agreement with Special Term that the fourth and fifth causes of action are time-barred. The New Paltz bond is clear in requiring enforcement in accordance with the provisions of section 137 of the State Finance Law, which requires a subcontractor of a contractor to commence an action to enforce the bond within one year from the date on which final payment under the subcontract became due. It is undisputed on this record that plaintiff’s claim accrued at the latest on December 8, 1971, when the State University Construction Fund made final payment to Lasker-Goldman on the New Paltz job. The action, commenced November 21, 1974, is untimely, since instituted more than one year after the date when final payment became due. Nor is there any merit to plaintiff’s assertion that the dispute with respect to the Barnard claim may somehow revive or extend the applicable Statute of Limitations on the New Paltz claim. However, with respect to the third cause of action, we disagree with Special Term’s disposition that, as a matter of law, no cognizable claim is raised under the terms of the bond. The third cause seeks to recover $80,000 in damages under the Barnard bond resulting from additional costs incurred and sums expended by plaintiff, upon allegations that such additional work, labor and services were necessitated by unreasonable delay by Lasker-Goldman in completing its contractual obligations. Contrary to the finding of Special Term that the bond did not contemplate
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.