Del. Cnty. v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC

• Decision Date: 17 October 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06763,973 N.Y.S.2d 817,110 A.D.3d 1211
• Parties: DELAWARE COUNTY, Appellant–Respondent, v. LEATHERSTOCKING HEALTHCARE, LLC, Respondent–Appellant, and Leatherstocking Realty Holdings, LLC, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 1211
973 N.Y.S.2d 817
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06763

DELAWARE COUNTY, Appellant–Respondent,
v.
LEATHERSTOCKING HEALTHCARE, LLC, Respondent–Appellant,
and
Leatherstocking Realty Holdings, LLC, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 17, 2013.

[973 N.Y.S.2d 818]

Porter L. Kirkwood, County Attorney, Delhi, for appellant-respondent.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Garden City (Justin C. Tan of counsel), for respondent-appellant and respondent.

Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

ROSE, J.P.

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Lambert, J.), entered September 17, 2012 in Delaware County, which, among other things, partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff and defendant Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC (hereinafter Healthcare) entered into a contract of sale in May 2005 whereby plaintiff agreed to sell its residential health facility to Healthcare. Under the terms of the contract, plaintiff's accounts receivable were not included in the sale and Healthcare was obligated to engage in ongoing collection efforts and to pay plaintiff the amounts collected. The sale closed in December 2006 and, at Healthcare's request, the real property on which the facility was located was deeded to defendant Leatherstocking Realty Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Realty). Healthcare then operated the facility under a long-term lease from Realty. In March 2009, when a dispute arose over the amounts collected and owed by Healthcare for plaintiff's accounts receivable, plaintiff and Healthcare entered into an agreement whereby Healthcare agreed to pay plaintiff $818,846.69 in monthly installments. After Healthcare allegedly failed to make 18 of the required monthly payments, plaintiff

[973 N.Y.S.2d 819]

commenced this action in January 2012 asserting causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud against both Healthcare and Realty. Defendants then moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint against Realty in its entirety and dismiss all causes of action against Healthcare except for so much of the breach of contract cause of action as is based upon the March 2009 agreement. Supreme Court granted the motion as to Realty and partially granted the motion as to Healthcare by dismissing the claim against it for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff appeals and Healthcare cross-appeals.

There is no merit to Healthcare's contention that the cause of action alleging its breach of the contract of sale is time-barred. A cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach ( see Ely–Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 402, 599 N.Y.S.2d 501, 615 N.E.2d 985 [1993];John J. Kassner & Co. v. City of New York, 46 N.Y.2d 544, 550, 415 N.Y.S.2d 785, 389 N.E.2d 99 [1979] ). Here, the money allegedly owed by Healthcare for the accounts receivable did not become due and, thus, the breach did not occur until after the closing, which occurred in December 2006. As this action was commenced less than six years later, in January 2012, the cause of action for breach of contract is timely and the motion to dismiss that claim against Healthcare was properly denied ( seeCPLR 213[2]; Glynos v. Dorizas, 106 A.D.3d 480, 481, 964 N.Y.S.2d 523 [2013];Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. JZG Resources, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 820, 822, 963 N.Y.S.2d 300 [2013],lv. dismissed21 N.Y.3d 1024, 972 N.Y.S.2d 209, 995...