The court correctly granted defendant's motion because Article 56 of the parties' public works contract had an explicit six month limitations period which accrued upon defendant's issuance of a certificate of substantial completion, issued here on August 15, 2014. Because the action was not commenced until October 23, 2015, well beyond the limitations period, it was correctly deemed untimely.
We reject plaintiff's contention that it elected to submit all of its damages...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
