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.
ANTHONY T. RINALDI, LLC doing business as The Rinaldi Group, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ANCHORAGE CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al., Defendants, North American Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant–Appellant. Red Apple 81 Fleet Place Development, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2017, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, denied, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery, defendant-appellant North American Specialty Insurance Company's (NAS) motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against it as time-barred, or in the alternative, for dismissal of the action on the same ground pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this action to collect on a surety bond posted by a subcontractor that defaulted on its performance, evidence submitted by plaintiff general contractor and intervenor project owner in the form of affidavits from individuals having personal knowledge of specific conversations with NAS representatives regarding—NAS's alleged desire to avoid litigation threatened by plaintiff on account of, inter alia, alleged delays by NAS in investigating the bond claim; that NAS agreed to move quickly on such claim provided plaintiff supplied additional requested documentation; and that NAS would also forego enforcement of the bond's contractual one-year limitations period, which was soon to expire, provided plaintiff and the intervenor continued to cooperate in the ongoing investigation—afforded sufficient evidence at this pre-discovery stage to find that plaintiff's waiver and estoppel defenses precluded a grant of summary judgment to NAS on the basis of the expired contractual limitations period (see generally Triple Cities Constr. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 4 N.Y.2d 443, 176 N.Y.S.2d 292, 151 N.E.2d 856 [1958] ).
We have considered NAS's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 7190
Decided: October 02, 2018
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)