New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
Estates 7
The Hudson Insurance Company is the plaintiff and AK Construction Co. LLC., Panasia Estates INC., and Hement Mehta are the defendants.
The Case
A New York Probate Lawyer said that in this action, the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment related to property damage, while the defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. There are six different avenues pursued by the plaintiffs, involving breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, neglect or intentional misconduct regarding the statute of limitations and the same in regards to subrogation rights. They are also seeking to be compensated for the costs of their legal aide.
Panasia Estates held a builder’s risk insurance policy issued by the Hudson Insurance Company. This policy covered the property which it owned. AK Construction was hired by Panasia to work on those properties. Around July 2003, Panasia made an insurance claim regarding water damage to a property. The plaintiff argues that building deterioration caused the damage, and as such claimed it was not responsible for covering the damages. They did not claim that AK Construction caused the leak; as such a problem would have been covered under the insurance policy. The plaintiff would be free to pursue action against AK Construction if their activity caused the damage, and also wants to hold Hehment Mehta liable.
Mr. Mehta is the property manager for Panasia Estates. He has also invested in AK Construction. It is important to note, however, that it is not an insured or a party to the insurance policy held on the property by Panasia Estates. Nassau County Probate Lawyers said that he, therefore, can have no personal liability no matter what positions he might hold with those two organizations. The plaintiff alleges that he was an officer, director and member of those organizations but that fact remains irrelevant to the matter of his personal liability. The complaint against him therefore needs to be dismissed.
When a declaratory judgment is made, the court has to state its grounds. When the question at hand is whether or not to dismiss a complaint because a proper claim wasn’t made, the issue is not about whether or not the end result of the hearing would be favorable to either party. Instead, the court only has to decide whether or not a case is actually presented which indicates that a declaratory judgment should be made.
Results
The motions that were put forward by AK Construction and by Panasia Estates were not granted. The plaintiff made a claim under the doctrine of anticipatory subrogation which prevented these movements for dismissal. When a defendant is subject to this type of a claim, they may implead another party if that party could be liable to the defendant for the claim being made by the original plaintiff. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers said the language which permits this is broadly phrased, which allows the court to include claims that are based on subrogation. It is important to note that no statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches should prevent this action from going forward. Neither AK Construction nor Panasia Estates could prove definitively that the plaintiff took a prohibitive amount of time to move forward with a claim. The key is that the defendants were not prejudiced by any excessive delay in moving forward on the part of the plaintiff.
Typically speaking, contractual obligations and liability claims are subject to a six year state of limitations. This involves property damage and a construction contract between the parties. As such, the six year statute of limitations applies, but it began on July 12, 2003. The action commenced four days short of the xi year period, rendering the statute of limitations an invalid reason for dismissal.
AK Construction had its motion denied. The plaintiff was also awarded $100 of motion costs to abide the event. Hement Mehta’s motion to dismiss the claim against him was granted, as was the claim of Panasia Estates.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you find yourself in need of legal advice, whether you are involved in an estate litigation or will contest, you may contact one of our offices to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers will help you determine what your best course of legal action will be based on your current situation.