New York Law Review

Putnins Contracting Corp. v. Winston Woods at Dix Hills, 36 N.Y.2d 679 (1975): Statute of Limitations for Abandonment vs. Completion Under Lien Law

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

36 N.Y.2d 679 (1975)

Under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law, the one-year statute of limitations in Section 77(2) applies only to cases involving completion of improvements, not abandonment; the statute of limitations for abandonment claims is determined by other applicable law.

Summary

Putnins Contracting Corporation brought an action against Winston Woods and L. R. 1826 under Article 3-A of the Lien Law. The central question was whether the one-year statute of limitations in Section 77(2) applied to claims based on abandonment of improvements, or only to claims related to completed improvements. The Court of Appeals held that Section 77(2) applied exclusively to cases of completion, emphasizing the difference in diction within the Lien Law and the practical distinctions between abandonment and completion. The court affirmed the lower court’s order, finding that issues of fact existed that precluded judgment on the pleadings.

Facts

Putnins Contracting Corporation initiated an action against Winston Woods at Dix Hills, Inc. and L. R. 1826 et al. based on alleged violations of Article 3-A of the Lien Law, concerning the use of construction funds. The specific details of the underlying contractual relationship and the nature of the alleged violations are not extensively detailed in the court’s opinion but it’s implied that the core dispute revolved around whether the improvements were completed or abandoned, which has direct implications on determining the applicable statute of limitations.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, where L.R. 1826 et al. moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 77(2) barred the action. The lower court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed that denial. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

Issue(s)

Whether the one-year statute of limitations provided in Section 77(2) of the New York Lien Law applies to actions predicated on the abandonment of improvements, as opposed to the completion of improvements, within the scope of Article 3-A of the Lien Law.

Holding

No, because Section 77(2) explicitly refers to

More ARTICLES