Durant v. Grange Silo Co.
Decision Date | 02 December 1960 |
Citation | 12 A.D.2d 694,207 N.Y.S.2d 691 |
Parties | Leland DURANT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GRANGE SILO COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Smith & Sovik, Syracuse, for appellant.
Ronald J. Dunn, Oneida, for respondent.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and COON, GIBSON, HERLIHY, and REYNOLDS, JJ.
This appeal is from an order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a property damage negligence action. Defendant moved under Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment on the pleadings, bill of particulars and an examination before trial taken April 20, 1959.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant negligently constructed a silo on plaintiff's property in September, 1945 and that thereafter in September, 1957 the silo collapsed damaging other property owned by the plaintiff. No claim is made for any damage or loss to the silo itself. The motion for summary judgment is based upon two grounds (a) that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations and (b) that plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. As to the first ground, Special Term properly held that the cause of action accrued on the date of the collapse of the silo, September 18, 1957 and that the Statute of Limitations, sec. 49, subd. 6, Civil Practice Act, began to run as of that date rather than from the date of sale or the discovery, prior to the silo's collapse, of certain defects in the materials or construction. In New York the cause of action for negligence accrues when there has been an invasion of personal or property rights (Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 270 N.Y. 287, 200 N.E. 824, 104 A.L.R. 450; Great Amer. Indem. Co. v. Lapp Insulator Co., 282 App.Div. 545, 125 N.Y.S.2d 147).
Schmidt, supra, 270 N.Y. at page 300, 200 N.E. at page 827.
Defendant seems to claim that its negligence, if any, resulted in injury to the plaintiff before the collapse...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital
...166 S.E.2d 173 (13 years); Rosenau v. City of New Brunswick (1968), 51 N.J. 130, 238 A.2d 169 (22 years); and Durant v. Grange Silo Co. (1960), 12 A.D.2d 694, 207 N.Y.S.2d 691 (12 Nor is the question of a cause of action being transmitted genetically or the genetic consequences from long-te......
-
Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Sal E. Lobianco & Son Co., Inc.
...cause of action of the tenants, who were not not parties to the contract, was held not to be barred. Cf. Durant v. Grange Silo Company, 12 A.D.2d 694, 207 N.Y.S.2d 691, 692 (1960); and Theurer v. Condon, 34 Wash.2d 448, 209 P.2d 311, 315 In Howard v. United Fuel Gas Company, 248 F.Supp. 527......
-
Cubito v. Kreisberg
...i. e., when she fell as a result of the defendants' claimed negligence, should apply, as Special Term held (cf. Durant v. Grange Silo Co., 12 A.D.2d 694, 207 N.Y.S.2d 691; Gile v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 281 App.Div. 95, 120 N.Y.S.2d 258), unless we are required by reasons of compelling public......
-
Fair Hous. Justice Ctr., Inc. v. JDS Dev. LLC
...the injury, regardless of how much time had passed since the initial sale or rental of the unit. See, e.g. , Durant v. Grange Silo Co. , 12 A.D.2d 694, 207 N.Y.S.2d 691, 692 (1960) (holding in case of grain silo collapse that "the cause of action accrued on the date of the collapse ... and ......