N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Construction / ARTICLE Meaning of Terms
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Construction Law § 58 (2026)

Year in statute, contract and public or private instrument

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 58. Year in statute, contract and public or private instrument.  The
term year in a statute, contract, or any public or private instrument,
means three hundred and sixty-five days, but the added day of a leap
year and the day immediately preceding shall for the purpose of such
computation be counted as one day. In a statute, contract or public or
private instrument, the term year means twelve months, the term half
year, six months, and the term a quarter of a year, three months.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Allen v. Howe, 645 N.E.2d 720 (N.Y. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allen v. Howe, 645 N.E.2d 720 (N.Y. 1994). · cites it 2× “In this regard, petitioners’ reference to General Construction Law § 58, which defines the term year to mean 365 days, in support of their claim that respondents misconstrued the intent of section 71, is misguided.”
Long Island Power Auth. v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist., 195 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994). “To impose the limitation urged by the defendants would be contrary to the clear import of the statute (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 94, 254; see also, General Construction Law § 58; O’Dea v School Dist.”
O'Dea v. Sch. Dist. of the Niagara Falls, 122 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1986). “Contrary to petitioner’s claim, a probationary period is measured by the calendar year, not the school year (see, General Construction Law § 58; Matter of Mugavin v Nyquist, supra; Matter of Grace v Board of Educ.”
D & A Grandview LLC v. 60 Davidson LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 24270 (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024). · cites it 2× “The argument was that since General Construction Law § 58 defines a year as 365 days, the statute of limitations period expired 1,095 days after March 31, 2021, i.”
D & A Grandview LLC v. 60 Davidson LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 24270 (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024). · cites it 2× “The argument was that since General Construction Law § 58 defines a year as 365 days, the statute of limitations period expired 1,095 days after March 31, 2021, i.”
DeCicco v. City of Syracuse, 68 A.D.3d 1771 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009). · cites it 2× “Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that February 29, 2008 could not be counted pursuant to General Construction Law § 58, and thus that the action is not time-barred.”
Turco v. McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1976). “” General Construction Law § 58 provides, "The term year in a statute, contract, or any public or private instrument, means three hundred and sixty-five days”.”
Raben v. Bd. of Educ., 143 Misc. 2d 884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989). · cites it 3× “) General Construction Law § 58 provides as follows: "58.”
Rich v. Lo, 2026 NY Slip Op 30654(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2026). “The plaintiff, in turn, thus had until October 17, 2024, or one year thereafter (see General Construction Law § 58) to 805326/2023 RICH, ROXANNE ET AL vs.”
Monticello Raceway Mgmt., Inc. v. Concord Assocs., L.P., 129 A.D.3d 1183 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015). “Such a construction ignores the plain meaning of the term annual and is also contrary to statutory principles governing the construction of contracts (see General Construction Law § 58). Finally, Supreme Court erred in its computation of damages as a result of its erroneous…”
Monticello Raceway Mgmt., Inc. v. Concord Assocs., L.P., 129 A.D.3d 1183 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015). “Such a construction ignores the plain meaning of the term annual and is also contrary to statutory principles governing the construction of contracts (see General Construction Law § 58). Finally, Supreme Court erred in its computation of damages as a result of its erroneous…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.