Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Susan Weis MINDEL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The PHOENIX OWNERS CORP., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered January 20, 2004, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred, as amended by order, same court and Justice, entered December 24, 2003, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The causes of action for declaratory judgment and reimbursement of moneys, based on requirements set forth in both Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-860 (adjoining chimneys) and a 1988 stipulation of settlement between the parties in a related action, were subject to the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[2] ). Defendant's responsibility to alter the chimneys of plaintiffs' residence to conform to height requirements (§ 27-860 [a] ), and to maintain and repair them (§ 27-860[f][4] ), is clearly imposed by statute and did not exist at common law (see Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 N.Y.2d 201, 208, 727 N.Y.S.2d 30, 750 N.E.2d 1078 [2001] ). Furthermore, plaintiffs' claims accrued at the time they completed the repair work in May 1998, more than three years prior to the commencement of this action in August 2002. The parties' 1988 stipulation imposed no separate or independent legal duties on defendant beyond those already imposed by statute. Accordingly, the shorter three-year statute of limitations applies here, rather than the six-year statute for breach of contract (see European Am. Bank v. Cain, 79 A.D.2d 158, 164, 436 N.Y.S.2d 318 [1981] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 21, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)