Where there is privity, or its functional equivalent, statute of limitations begins to run on claim against contractor upon completion of work.

The plaintiffs commenced this action in 2018 to recover for fire damage to their home allegedly caused by an improperly installed fireplace. The home was constructed in 2002 and 2003, and the fireplace installed by a subcontractor between October 7, 2002, and March 24, 2003. The contractor and subcontractor separately moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the amended complaint insofar as it was asserted against each of them. Discovery established the plaintiffs contracted with the general contractor. Although the plaintiffs did not contract with the subcontractor, they had input into the home’s features and requested that three fireplaces be installed. The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed dismissal of the claims against both defendants, finding that, as to the subcontractor, the plaintiffs were not a stranger to the contract and the relationship between the parties was the functional equivalent of privity, noting that the plaintiffs, at the very least, consented to the work. Because the defendants demonstrated that they completed their work on the home no later than 2003, the action commenced in 2018 was found to be untimely.

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}