Cubito v. Kreisberg
| Decision Date | 14 April 1978 |
| Citation | 94 Misc.2d 56,404 N.Y.S.2d 69 |
| Parties | Rose CUBITO, Plaintiff, v. Gerald KREISBERG, Individually and d/b/a Daroe Realty & Sprain Construction Incorp., Kreisberg, d/b/a Lake Street Associates & Joseph Goldstein, d/b/a Jo-Ab Service Co., & Jo-Ab Service Corp., and Fox Plumbing Company, James J. Fox, d/b/a Fox Plumbing Company, Mauroc Carpentry Inc., and Gindele & Johnson, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Finkelstein, Mauriello, Kaplan & Levine, P. C., Newburgh, for plaintiff.
Harold M. Foster, New York City, for defendants Kreisberg.
Davis & Davis, New York City, for defendant Gindele & Johnson.
Plaintiff was injured when she fell on an accumulation of water and other slippery substances on the floor of a laundry room in Building # 24 on defendant owner's premises. It is one of plaintiff's contentions that because of the faulty design and shaping of the floor and faulty design of the plumbing and drainage installations therein, the said floor failed to remain free of the said water and other substances.
The architects' building plans were completed on November 26, 1969. The building was completed and a certificate of final inspection was sent to the owner on May 7, 1973.
The injury to the plaintiff was sustained on October 30, 1974. On or about October 6, 1977, plaintiff sued, among others, the architects who designed the floor and the building in which the accident happened.
The defendant architects now move to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action as against them, on the ground that the three-year statute of limitations applicable to actions sounding in tort extinguished plaintiff's right to bring this action on May 7, 1976.
The court finds it unreasonable to apply the statute of limitations in this case in such fashion as to hold that the right to recover for the alleged injury was extinguished prior to the time that the injury was sustained, and prior to any time that the plaintiff could have commenced an action to recover damages therefor. Such a result would be unconscionable (see Sosnow v. Paul, 36 N.Y.2d 780, 782, 369 N.Y.S.2d 693, 330 N.E.2d 643, commenting on the dissent in the court below.)
Unlike Sosnow, supra, the plaintiff in the present case is not the owner of the premises, but a third party who was injured by the alleged negligence of the architects, with whom she had no prior relationship.
With respect to defendant's argument that to fail to bar this action would permit suits in similar cases for injuries which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cubito v. Kreisberg
...time that the injury had been sustained or that an action could have been brought to recover damages for the injury (Cubito v. Kreisberg, 94 Misc.2d 56, 404 N.Y.S.2d 69). We affirm. The Statute of Limitations applicable to the liability of an architect for injuries suffered by third parties......