Eastco Bldg. Servs., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth.

Eastco Bldg. Servs., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 06388 Decided on September 27, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2012
Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson, DeGrasse, JJ.
8130 102322/10

[*1]Eastco Building Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Defendant-Appellant.




Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Lauren L. Esposito of counsel),
for appellant.
Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success (Joseph M.
Labuda of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered January 10, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion for dismissal of the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

It is well-settled that "[a] cause of action for breach of a construction contract accrues upon substantial completion of the work" (Superb Gen. Contr. Co. v City of New York, 39 AD3d 204, 204 [1st Dept 2007], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 800 [2008], citing Phillips Constr. Co. v City of New York, 61 NY2d 949 [1984]). Plaintiff commenced this action more than six years after completing its work, and therefore the claim for breach of contract is untimely and should have been dismissed (CPLR 213[a]). Additionally, the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract between the parties covering the subject matter in dispute precludes recovery in quasi-contract
(see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK