Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a breach of contract dispute between a plaintiff and a defendant surety over a 1987 HVAC project. The plaintiff contracted with Breen, Inc. to complete work on a school project, scheduled for completion on September 30, 1988. Breen abandoned the project on August 3, 1988. Consequently, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant, Breen's surety, for the uncompleted work. The plaintiff initiated a breach of contract suit on September 1, 1994, which was dismissed due to failure to serve the summons. Upon recommencing the action on February 9, 1995, the defendant sought summary judgment, asserting the claim was untimely under the six-year statute of limitations for performance bond actions. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the action accrued no later than August 9, 1988, when Breen was declared in default and terminated. The court dismissed the action as untimely, and the appeal affirmed this decision unanimously without costs. The court did not address the issue of effective recommencement under CPLR 306-b (b), as it was unnecessary given the ruling on timeliness. The judgment was affirmed by Justices Pine, Fallon, Callahan, Doerr, and Davis.
Legal Issues Addressed
Accrual of Action for Breach of Contractsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the action accrued no later than the date the plaintiff declared the contractor in default, aligning with the termination of the contract.
Reasoning: The court found that the action accrued no later than August 9, 1988, when the plaintiff declared Breen in default and terminated the contract.
Breach of Contract and Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined the statute of limitations for the breach of contract claim based on a performance bond began when the plaintiff declared the contractor in default.
Reasoning: The statute of limitations for a performance bond action is six years, and the plaintiff acknowledged that the action accrued upon Breen's default.
Recommencement of Action under CPLR 306-b (b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found it unnecessary to determine if the plaintiff effectively recommenced the action under CPLR 306-b (b) due to the untimeliness of the initial filing.
Reasoning: The ruling on whether the plaintiff effectively recommenced the action under CPLR 306-b (b) was deemed unnecessary.