Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008

Kaymakcian v. Board of Managers of the Charles House Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 18, 2008

49 A.D.3d 407; 854 N.Y.2d 52

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Soloway v. The CIM Group (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Soloway v. CIM Group (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Garron v. Bristol House, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Town of Huntington v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Greenberg v. Wiesel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Seigel v. Dakota, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Gabriel v. Board of Managers of the Gallery House Condominium (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Capruso v. Village of Kings Point (N.Y. 2014)
Federal Insurance v. Distinguished Properties Umbrella Managers Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
King v. 870 Riverside Drive Housing Development Fund Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred was improper where, pursuant to the condominiums’ bylaws, respondents had a continuing duty to repair the building’s limited common elements, including the terrace of the apartment directly above plaintiffs, which was the source of the subject recurring leaks. Respondents’ failure to do so, despite being repeatedly notified by plaintiffs, constituted a continuing wrong that “is not referable exclusively to the day the original wrong was committed” (see 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus, 289 AD2d 145, 146 [2001]). However, inasmuch as plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, the claim is limited to any alleged *408damages that occurred within three years of the commencement of the instant action (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 118 [2003]; CPLR 214 [4]).

We have considered respondents’ remaining arguments, including that the complaint fails to allege specific facts to assert a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.