对法院索赔的任何人最重要的信息之一是适用于其特定索赔的“限制规约”。限制期限的规约是在法院举行索赔的时间，并在法律上避免在问题的行为发生后避免诉讼，当事人褪色时，记录被摧毁或丢弃。诉讼规约的重要性无法低估，因为作为一般性，如果一个缔约方在在法院举行索赔时，则失去了使这一索赔的权利。
Angelillo.
While the concept sounds simple enough, it is not. There are many different statutes of limitation periods, depending on the type of claim involved and, sometimes, the person or entity against whom it is being made. For example, most contract claims have a six year statute of limitations, while claims based on negligence generally have a three year statute of limitations. In the construction industry, it gets even more complex because, if either type of claim is against certain public agencies, different statutes of limitation may apply. Further complicating the issue, different statutes of limitations begin to “run,” meaning that the clock starts ticking on the time to make a claim, at different times. The date that the statute of limitations begins to run is also determined by the facts of the case and the type of claim involved.
A recent case decided by New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, Bloomingdales v. New York City Transit Authority, highlights some of the statute of limitation complexities involved in construction cases. In the Bloomingdales case, NYCTA hired Janus, Inc., a construction contractor, to perform excavation work between 59th and 60th Streets in Manhattan as part of a NYCTA project. During the course of its work on the project, in September 1999, Janus uncovered what it thought was a non-functioning – or “dead” – water main. Because it was in the way of Janus’ work, Janus cut the “dead” main and installed a concrete encased conduit in its place.
在Janus削减“死者”主要的雨天，盛开的商店淹没了。Janus在2002年2月在Janus完成了两年之后，盛开的道尔斯聘请了自己的承包商来调查洪水的原因并解决问题。BloomingDales的承包商发现，Janus Cut的“死亡”水主要不是水的主要，并且实际上是BloomingDales商店的活跃排水管。它得出结论，切断排水管是洪水的原因。BloomingDales承包商约为165,000美元，以取代剪切排水管，然后，2003年1月，起诉Janus和Nycta的成本。
为了回应诉讼，纽约特辩称，案件已迟到，不得不被驳回。法院同意了。法院发现，当Janus在1999年裁减排水管时，局限性期间的规约开始运行。它继续如此，因为一个特别的一年和90天的限制诉讼，纽约尔达及其承包商，盛开的将其案例在一年内，1999年9月90日在局限性规约中。因此，它在2003年1月开始的盛开的案例迟到了。
Bloomingdales appealed this decision and won. The Court of Appeals found that if the case was only about Janus’ cutting of the pipe, which admittedly occurred more than one year and 90 days before Bloomingdales sued NYCTA, the case would have to be dismissed. However, the court agreed with Bloomingdales that installation of the conduit in place of the pipe was a “continuing trespass” on Bloomingdales’ property. This meant that a new statute of limitations period began to run every day that the conduit remained in place. Since it was in place within one year and 90 days of the date that Bloomingdales started its case, the Court of Appeals found that Bloomingdales had started its case on time.
In the Bloomingdales case, the facts supported Bloomingdales, whose case was allowed to proceed. However, the case highlights some of the complexities involved in analyzing the statute of limitations and shows that it is vitally important to quickly determine the legal theory of any claim and the party against whom it is being asserted. A failure to do so may result in a case being dismissed and the rights sought under the claim being lost forever.
