Seinuk v Papadatos Partnership, LLP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Seinuk v Papadatos Partnership, LLP 2013 NY Slip Op 30500(U) March 12, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 600216/2010 Judge: Shlomo S. Hagler Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART: PRESENT: Hon. Shlomo S. Haaler Jusfice 17 . . . . . . . F IL E a D E j N 0 . : YSRAEL A. SEINUK, P.C., Plaintiff, - against - * 60021612010 OTI E N SEQ. NO.: 001 E i MAR DEdlSlON and ORDER NEW YORK 8OUNTY CLERm O @ m PAPADATOS PARTNERSHIP LLP, Defendan Motion by defendant for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on statute of limitation grounds. Papers Numbered Notice of Motion with Affidavit of Steven Papadatos, a partner of defendant, dated June 28, 2011 8 Exhibits I through 5 ..................................... ................................................ Defendant sMemorandum bf Law ................................. Affidavit of Plaintiff s principal, Jaime Ocampo, dated J with Exhibits A and B ............................ ..................... ............. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law .................. Transcript of Oral Argument of June 25, 20 Cross-Motion: dNo 0 Yes 1.2,3 4 5,6 7 8 Number of Cross-Motions: 0 Upon the foregoing papers, it is hereby ordered that Defendant s Motion is denied as set forth in the attached separate written Decision and Order. Dated: March 7, 2013 New York, New York 1 Check one: 0 Final Disposition c I Motion is Granted dDenied a SETTLE ORDER Check if Appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST &Non-Final Disposition 0 Granted in Part Other 0 SUBMIT ORDER REFERENCE a a [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part 17 YSRAEL A. SEINUK, P.C., Index No.: 600216/10 - against - Plaintiff, Motion Sequence No. 001 PAPADATOS PARTNERSHIP LLP, Defend ant. DECISION & ORDER X _r _----_*l---____---- ------------- ----------~------~--------------- HON. SHLOMO S. HAGLER, J.S.C. I- Defendant Papadatos Partnership LLP ( Papadat judgment to dismiss the complaint on Statute of P.C. ( Scinuk or plaintiff ), opposes the motion. t MAR *I 2 2013 NEW YORK COUNI=Y CLERKS FACTUAL BACKGROUND ! 1 The Orthodox Autocephalous Church in Tirana, Albania (( the Church ), hired the defendant, an architectural firm, to provide design and related services for the Church. Plaintiff submitted a proposal for structural engineering services, dated June 25, 2003, which defendant accepted and signed on August 26, 2003 ( the Agreement ). (See Exhibit 3 to Defendant s Motion) The Agreement provided that the fee of $200,000 was to be billed on a percent complete basis. (Id.) Both parties agree that plaintiff performed its work on the project from August through Dcccmbcr 2003 and that its last work was performed in or around December 2003. (See Affidavit of Steven Papadatos, dated June 28,201 1, in support of the Motion, at 77 9-10; Plaintiffs Response to Defendant s Interrogatories, Responses to Interrogatories 4 and 6, attached as Exhibit 4 to Defendant s Motion.) Plaintiff billed defendant on a monthly basis beginning in August 2003 and continuing through March 2004, (,%e Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Affidavit in Opposition.) Defendant [* 3] paid the bills from August 2003 through November 2003, but did not pay plaintiffs bills of December 2003, January 2004, February 2004, or March 2004. (Id.) Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant on three causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) quantum meruit, and (3) account stated. Plaintiff purchased an index number and filed its Summons and Complaint on January 28, 2010. (See Exhibit I to Defendant s Motion and Exhibit B to Plaintiff s AfEdavit in Opposition.) Defendant served its answer on or about February 12, 2010. (See Exhibit 2 to Defendant s Motion.) DISCUSSION Both parties agree that the statute of limitations for this breach of contract action is six (6) years, pursuant to CPLR 5 21 3(2). Defendant asserts that plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because it was fled more than six years after the cause of action accrued. Defendant argues that the cause of action accrued upon the completion of performance ie., when the last work was performed in December of 2003. (See Defendant s Memorandum of Law, at p. 2.) In support of its position, defendant cites Amedeu Hotels Ltd, Partnership v Zwicker Elec. Co., 291 AD2d 322 (1 st Dept 2002) (in suit against company for negligent design and installation of electrical distribution system for hotel, statute of limitations commenced to run upon completion of work), C ily School Dist. of Cily ojNewburgh v Stubhins & Assoc., 85 NY2d 535 (1995) ( In cases against architccts or contractors, the accrual date for Statute of Limitations purposes is completion of performance I . . an owner s claim arising out of defective construction accrues on date of completion ), C, ounly o Hocklund v Kuyer, Garment und Davidson Architects, 309 AD2d 891 f (2d Dept 2003), and John J. Kussner 8 Co.,fnc.v C@ ofNew York, 46 NY2d 544 (1 979). ( I d ) -2- [* 4] In opposition, plaintiff' argues that the cause of action only accrued upon the breach of the contract, when the defendant failed to pay the invoice for the completed work.' (See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law, at p. 1.) In support of its position, plaintiff cites Verizon N. Y , Inc. v Sprint PCS, 43 AD3d 686 (1st Dept 2007), which specifically distinguishes Amedeo Hotels Ltd. Purtnershrp v Zwicker, and holds that when the claim is for payment on the contract, and not for defective or consequential damages, the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date plaintiff's invoice demanded payment and defendants failed to pay. (See also Howard B. Spivak Architect P. C. v Zilberman, 2008 NY Slip Op 32475 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008 I [citing Bornhurdier Transportalion (Holdings) USA, Inc. v Telephonics Corp., 14 AD3d 358 (1 st Dept 2005)l.) Burden of Proof on Motion for Summary Judvment Summary judgment is a drastic remedy "which should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence ofa triable issue (Moskowitz v. Garlock, 23 A.D.2d 943,944) or where the issuc is even arguable (Barrett v. Jacobs, 255 N.Y. 520,522) since it serves to deprive a party of his [her or its] day in court. Relief should be granted only where no genuine, triable issue of fact exists." (Broadway I I IthlrtreetAs,~ociate.s Morris, 160 A.D.2d 182,553 N.Y.S.2d 153 [lst Dept 19903). v. 'l'he Court of Appeals set forth the movant's burden on a motion for summary judgment in Winegrctd v N. I U Medical Cenler, 64 NY2d 85 1, 853 (1985) as follows: : Plaintiff also argues that it did not know that defendant was replacing the plaintiff as strLictiiral ongineer on the project and that it would not be paid for its already performed services iiiitil the defendant refused to pay plaintiffs invoices. (See Affidavit in Opposition of PlaintifFs principal, Jaime Ocampo, dated July 26,201 1, at 77 6-7) 1. [* 5] The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (see, Zuckerman v. Ct ofNew York, 49N.Y.2d 557,562,427 N.Y.S.2d 595,404 iy N.E.2d 71 8; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404, 145 N.Y.S.2d 498, 144 N.E.2d 387). Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Mutter ofRedemption Church of Christ v. Williams, 84 A.D.2d 648, 649,444 N.Y.S.2d 305; Greenberg v. Monlon Realty, 43 A.D.2d 968,969, 352 N.Y.S.2d 494). This Court need not decide the issue of when the cause of action accrued in this action bccause defendant failed to meet its burden on summary judgment by demonstrating that it preserved its defense based on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant failed to raise this defense in either its answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR $ 321 1. A statute of limitations defense is referenced in subdivisios (a), paragraph 5 of CPLR $ 321 1. Subdivision (e) of CPLR 6 32 I I provides that: At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a), and no more than one such motion shall be permitted. Any objection or defense based on a ground set forth in paragraphs one, three, four, five and six of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading. Since the defendant neither included a statute of limitations defense in its answer nor brought a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 5 321 1 , defendant has waived this defense. See Hursf v Rrowiz, 72 AD3d 434 (1st Dept 2010) ( [[Aln objection or defense based on the statute of limitations is waived unless raised in a responsive pleading or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Defendant failed to do either, and thus waived this defense [citingBuckeye Retirement Co.,L. L. C., Ltd v Lee, 4 1 AD3d 183 ( 1 st Dept 2007)].) -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.