At page 558 Determining accrual of cause of action for architect's negligence5 citing casespetitioner architect’s breach of contract and professional negligence. Both sides contend, and we agree, that the IAS Court should not have left it to the…
- Richards v. Passarelli, 69 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedCorp., 278 AD2d 143, 144 [2000]; Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 [1994]; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assoc. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557, 558 [1993]).
- Serradella v. Lords Corp., 50 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).publishedSuch issue is raised by documentary evidence tending to show that the architect was retained not just to draft construction plans but also to obtain Building Department permits and approvals (see Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assoc. [FDIC],…
- Town of Wawarsing v. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).publishedFurthermore, a claim for professional malpractice against an engineer or architect accrues upon the completion of performance under the contract and the consequent termina tion of the parties’ professional relationship (see Frank v Mazs Gr…
- Frank v. Mazs Grp., LLC, 30 A.D.3d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).publishedPartners, 271 AD2d 233, 234 [2000]; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assoc. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557, 558 [1993]).
- Bd. of Mgrs. of Cipriani Club Residences at 55 Wall Condo. v. Howard L. Zimmerman Architects & Engrs. DPC, 230 A.D.3d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).published Co., LLC v CMA Design Studio P.C ., 68 AD3d 500, 503 [1st Dept 2009]; see Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assoc. [FDIC] , 189 AD2d 557, 558 [1st Dept 1993]).
Other citing cases
- In re the Arbitration between Prudential Sec. Inc. & Pesce, 168 Misc. 2d 699 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996).published
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered June 4, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration on the ground that the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations, without prejudice to petitioner’s raising the Statute of Limitations with the arbitrator, and denied, as academic, respondent’s cross-motion to compel arbitration and for a declaration that the arbitration was timely commenced, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross-motion to the extent it seeks a declaration that the arbitration was timely commenced, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Respondent seeks to arbitrate a claim that certain portions of newly constructed buildings it owns failed as a result of[*558] petitioner architect’s breach of contract and professional negligence.
Both sides contend, and we agree, that the IAS Court should not have left it to the arbitrator to decide whether the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 7502 [b]; Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669, 674).
A cause of action against an architect accrues when his or her professional relationship with the owner ends, this usually occurring upon the issuance of the final payment certificate pursuant to the contract (Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713, affd 58 NY2d 684). Here, because the architect was contractually obligated to issue final certificates to the owner before the project was deemed finally completed, the professional relationship ended upon the architect’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations and not upon the physical completion of the buildings. It is clear that such occurred no earlier than the second half of 1986, within the applicable six-year period of limitations from the November 26, 1991 demand for arbitration. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.