CG Ltd. Partnership v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care

[*1] CG Ltd. Partnership v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care 2015 NY Slip Op 51154(U) Decided on August 7, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570940/13

CG Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Kingsbridge Heights Care Center, Inc., d/b/a Kingsbridge Heights Rehabilitation and Care Center, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Even assuming that the underlying motion for partial summary judgment was not barred by the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions, it was properly denied. Although the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract actions would bar plaintiff's claims for rent accruing prior to May 5, 2000 (see CPLR 213[2]), a triable issue is raised as to whether the written rent schedule prepared by defendant - which set forth, inter alia, the monthly rent due from 1994 through 2000, and the number of months rent was paid during this period - was sufficient to restart the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101; Fade v Pugliani/Fade, 8 AD3d 612 [2004]). "Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case" (Estate of Vengroski v Garden Inn, 114 AD2d 927, 928 [1985]). Thus, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue (see Roth v Speilman, 25 AD3d 383 [2006]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: August 07, 2015