Plaintiff Terri Korb filed the instant action on November 12, 2021, seeking $5,000 in damages from the Defendant James Camardello. The matter proceeded to trial on February 3, 2022.

The Plaintiff appeared and testified that she entered into a contract with the Defendant for various construction projects on her property on November 11, 2014. Plaintiff testified that the work was completed sometime in December, 2014, but that she was unsatisfied with the quality of the work performed. Plaintiff testified that the Defendant came to the property in the Spring of 2015, but was not able to reach an agreement about how to bring the work to her satisfaction. Plaintiff provided the Court with various repair estimates and documentation.

The Plaintiff admitted the following exhibits:

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #1: Estimate for repairs from Powell Woodcock Construction

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #2: Report by Engineering America Co.

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #3: Four (4) photographs

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #4: Estimate (2 pages) between Plaintiff & Defendant dated 11/14/14

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #5: invoice for Engineering America Co.

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #6: invoice from Shane Brown for electric work

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #7: invoice from Powell Woodcock Construction for drainage pipe work

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #8: invoice from Finch Waste Co LLC

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #9: calendar of events from November, 2014 to August, 2015 [*2](excluding January & February, 2015)

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #10: handwritten notes showing timeline from December, 2014 to August, 2015

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #11: various communications from Plaintiff to Defendant

The Defendant appeared and testified that the work he performed was satisfactory. The Defendant says he met engineer Tom Davis at the property who approved of the work. The Defendant did not call Mr. Davis as a witness, so the Court only took that testimony from the Defendant for it's effect on the Defendant rather than for the truth of the matter asserted.

The Defendant admitted the following exhibits:

• Defendant's Exhibit A: a sketch of the work on the subject property

The Court has considered all of the evidence, searched the record, and finds that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. CPLR section 201 provides "An action, including one brought in the name or for the benefit of the state, must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement." CPLR section 213 provides "[t]he following actions must be commenced within six years: [2] an action upon a contractual obligation or liability " Additionally, CPLR section 203 [a] provides "[t]he time within which an action must be commenced, except as otherwise expressly prescribed, shall be computed from the time the cause of action accrued to the time the claim is interposed."

The uncontroverted testimony of both litigants was that the work on the November 14, 2014, contract was completed sometime in December, 2014. Thereafter, the parties had a disagreement about the quality of the work. Plaintiff testified that Plaintiff's Exhibit #10 was a timeline of work in 2014 and communications in 2015. The Court finds that the breach of contract accrued from the time the allegedly improper work was completed sometime in December, 2014.

Without having a specific day of the month to work with, the Court will determine that the work was completed and the claim had accrued by December 31, 2014. This would mean the Plaintiff would have to file her claim by December 31, 2020. The instant claim was filed on November 12, 2021. The Court is aware that our Governor suspended and/or tolled the statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic for the 228 days from March 20 to November 4, 2020. "To clarify, a toll stops the running of the applicable period of limitations for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant limitations period. Unlike a toll, a suspension does not exclude its duration from the calculation of the relevant time period. Rather, it simply delays the expiration of the time period or filing deadline until the end date of the suspension." (Baker v. 40 Wall St. Holdings Corp., No. 513153/2019, 2022 WL 70014 [NY Sup Ct 2022]). At this time, the appellate courts have conflicting decisions on whether the executive orders were a stay or a toll on the statute of limitations. A suspension would not help the Plaintiff advance her claim because the statute of limitations would not have run until after the suspension period so there would be nothing to extend. If the Court were to consider the Executive Orders to be a toll, not a stay, the additional 228 days would only extend the time for Plaintiff to file August 16, 2021.

Due to the foregoing, the Court does not reach the merits of the case because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The petition is dismissed without costs because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.