IN RE: LANDOW & LANDOW ARCHITECTS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: LANDOW & LANDOW ARCHITECTS, P.C., Respondent, v. SHOREFRONT JEWISH GERIATRIC CENTER, INC., Appellant.

Decided: December 24, 2001

WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ. Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Kannry, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Tony Berman, Paul Monte, and John P. Huber of counsel), for appellant. Zetlin & De Chiara, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Zetlin and Robert L. Honig of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an architectural malpractice claim, Shorefront Jewish Geriatric Center, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated December 22, 2000, which granted the petition and denied its cross application to compel arbitration.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the agreement between the petitioner and appellant, the applicable Statute of Limitations began to run upon “substantial completion” of the project.   Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly found that substantial completion of the project occurred no later than May 1994, when the premises was occupied for its intended use (see, State of New York v. Lundin, 60 N.Y.2d 987, 471 N.Y.S.2d 261, 459 N.E.2d 486).   Accordingly, the demand for arbitration, which was dated June 28, 2000, is barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations involving an architectural malpractice claim (see, CPLR 214[6];  Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v. Lituchy, 269 A.D.2d 554, 703 N.Y.S.2d 746).   The Supreme Court also correctly found that the continuous treatment doctrine does not toll the Statute of Limitations in the present case (see, National Life Ins. Co. v. Hall & Co., 67 N.Y.2d 1021, 503 N.Y.S.2d 318, 494 N.E.2d 449;  Loft Corp. v. Porco, 283 A.D.2d 556, 725 N.Y.S.2d 211;  Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v. Lituchy, supra;  Pittelli v. Schulman, 128 A.D.2d 600, 512 N.Y.S.2d 860).

FRIEDMANN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard