A.C. LEGNETTO CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
92 N.Y.2d 275, 702 N.E.2d 830, 680 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1998).
October 15, 1998
4 No. 137
(Case Summary by the Editorial Board)
(98 NY Int. 0115)
Decided October 15, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Vic J. Kopnitsky, for appellant.
Edward J. Sheats, for respondent.
Trataros Construction Inc., amicus curiae.
WESLEY, J.:
This case requires us to identify the appropriate applicable statute
of limitations in an action on a municipal construction bond. Prior to
1985, the resolution of this question would have focused on whether
the bond was properly classified as a common law or a statutory
obligation. However, given the 1985 amendment to State Finance Law
137, makingpayment bonds mandatory on municipal projects such as this,
these traditional classifications are not dispositive here. In light
of the legislative mandate, we hold that, unless the particular bond
provides a longer statute of limitations, the period prescribed in the
State Finance Law governs. We therefore affirm the Appellate Division
order dismissing plaintiff's suit as time barred.
This case involves a dispute over work performed by plaintiff A.C.
Legnetto Construction, Inc. on an elementary school renovation project
for the City of Syracuse. Lawman Construction Co., Inc. was the
general contractor on the job. Legnetto subcontracted to do
landscaping and other site work. In connection with the project,
Lawman obtained a "Contractor's Performance Bond" through defendant
Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Lawman's contract with the City of
Syracuse called for the furnishing of a bond the form for the bond was
provided by the City. It is undisputed that the bond was required
under State Finance Law § 137.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Trataros Construction Inc., amicus curiae.
Prior to 1985, the resolution of this question would have focused on whether the bond was
However, given the 1985 amendment to State Finance Law § 137, makingpayment bonds mandatory
In light of the legislative mandate, we hold that, unless the particular bond provides a
We therefore affirm the Appellate Division order dismissing plaintiff's suit as time barred.
This case involves a dispute over work performed by plaintiff A.C. Legnetto Construction,
Lawman obtained a "Contractor's Performance Bond" through defendant Hartford Fire Insurance
While the parties dispute whether Legnetto adequately performed its work under the contract,
After attempting to obtain satisfaction from Lawman and demanding payment from Hartford,
The trial court agreed, holding that, since the bond in question had been furnished pursuant
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that "he bond is required by section 137 * * * and,
on the ground that the bond was a common law bond and the six year limitations period found
Thereis no question that Lawman was required by section 137 to furnish a bond on this
Thus, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory reference in the bond, it must be deemed to
Since this bond was required under the State Finance Law, it must be deemed ipso facto to
Co., 212 AD2d 225, at 229 231).
However, once municipalities were required to bond all substantial construction projects, the
|
