 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband12/16/2004
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
In 1996, the Legislature amended CPLR 214 (6) to provide that the limitations period in non-medical malpractice claims is three years, whether the complaint is cast in contract or in tort. In this case we are called upon to determine whether the breach of a provision in an architectural contract requiring that plans, drawings and specifications comply with applicable building codes is governed by the three-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims or the more generous six-year contract limitations period. We hold that the purpose of the statute is best served by applying the three-year statute of limitations applicable to all non-medical professional malpractice claims.
In January 1998, McKinsey & Company, Inc. entered into an agreement with R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband Architects (K&H; through which K&H;would perform architectural and interior design services in connection with 13,000-plus square feet of office space McKinsey had leased in Stamford, Connecticut. The parties agreed that disputes arising from the contract would be subject to arbitration.
Upon K&H;s completion of the project, the Stamford Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy for the premises dated November 3, 1998. However, four years later, McKinsey claimed K&H;failed to provide fire protection in compliance with the Connecticut Building Code and as specified in the parties' agreement and that McKinsey was required to install fire protection at its own expense. Section V (A) of the agreement, entitled "ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOCUMENTS," states that:
"All plans, drawings, specifications and other documents prepared by Architect or its consultants or engineers in connection with the Project . . . shall be in compliance with all laws, codes, ordinances and other requirements applicable to the Project (including, without limitation, the relevant building code, the requirements of the local board of fire underwriters or similar body, and any permits for the work) . . . ."
In April 2002, McKinsey submitted a demand for arbitration. K&H;responded by commencing the instant CPLR article 75 special proceeding for a permanent stay of arbitration, arguing that the claim was barred by the CPLR 214 (6) three-year statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice actions. K&H;further sought to dismiss McKinsey's claim with prejudice . Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that McKinsey's claim was one for breach of contract rather than malpractice because the architects failed to perform a contractual obligation. Supreme Court determined that the claim was timely under CPLR 213 (2) the six-year contract statute of limitations and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the contract provision did not guarantee code compliance, but was an ordinary contractual term by which the parties agreed K&H;would provide services in a professional manner. The court stated that "whether petitioner's alleged failure to comply with the applicable code provisions was a breach of contract or tortious in nature is immaterial for statute of limitations purposes, since the resulting noncompliance is the same, as is the remedy sought" (3 AD3d 143, 146 ). The Appellate Division held that the claim was barred by CPLR 214 (6) the three-year statute of limitations. We granted leave to appeal and now affirm.
Analysis
CPLR 214 (6) states that "an action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlyi
Page 1 2 3 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|