New York City School Construction Authority v. Ennead Architects LLP
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Century Tower Assoc. NY LLC v. Feld, Kaminetzsky & Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Century Tower Assoc. NY LLC v. Feld, Kaminetzsky & Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Montano v. New York City Dept. of Homeless Servs. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Board of Mgrs. of Cipriani Club Residences at 55 Wall Condominium v. Howard L. Zimmerman Architects & Engrs. DPC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- 1232 S. Blvd LLC v. FXFowle Architects, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Clover Communities Beavercreek, LLC v. Mussachio Architects P.C. (District Court, N.D. New York 2023)
- Creative Rest., Inc. v. Dyckman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- City of New York v. George G. Sharp, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
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
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered January 15, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on statute of limitations grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.
On this CPLR 3211 (a) (5) motion, defendant did not meet its initial burden of “establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired” (Benn v Benn, 82 AD3d 548, 548 [1st Dept 2011]). A cause of action to recover damages against an architect for professional malpractice is governed by a three-year statute of limitations, which accrues upon “termination of the professional relationship” — that is, when it “completes its performance of significant (i.e. non-ministerial) duties under the parties’ contract” (Sendar Dev. Co., LLC v CMA Design Studio P.C., 68 AD3d 500, 503 [1st Dept 2009]). As this action was brought on February 27, 2015, plaintiff’s claims were timely so long as they accrued on or after February 27, 2012.
Here, defendant continued to carry out its contractual duties well after February of 2012 by, for example, assisting plaintiff with obtaining a final certificate of occupancy (see e.g. Serradilla v Lords Corp., 50 AD3d 345, 346 [1st Dept 2008]). Defendant was contractually obligated to review “as built” drawings under the relevant agreement, which it continued to do after February of 2012 (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas v EnergyPro Constr. Partners, 271 AD2d 233, 234 [1st Dept *619 2000]). The provisions of the parties’ contract that the IAS court relied upon in determining that the parties’ relationship ended in 2009 when the work was “substantially completed” were at best ambiguous, and certainly not sufficient to satisfy defendant’s threshold burden of establishing untimeliness (Benn, 82 AD3d at 548; Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co., 227 AD2d 335, 336 [1st Dept 1996]).
As an alternative holding, we conclude that the continuous representation doctrine toll applies, at least with respect to defendant’s attempts after February 2012 to remedy the faulty design of the custom etched-glass windows (City of New York v Castro-Bianco, Piscioneri & Assoc., 222 AD2d 226, 227-228 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant does not dispute that it performed these services within three years of the action being commenced.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.