TRINITY CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Atkin Olshin LAWSON-BELL, formerly Tony Atkin Associates; Bruce E. Brooks & Associates; E. Allen Reeves, Inc.; and Gallo Masonry, L.L.C., Defendants-Respondents, and
Dibiase Construction, Inc.; Ortega Consulting Structural Engineering; Lower Bucks Cooling and Heating; and F & M Rojak Insulation Co., Defendants, and
Gallo Masonry, L.L.C., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Maria Isabel G. Beas, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued April 23, 2007.
Decided June 27, 2007.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Adrienne C. Rogove, Princeton, argued the cause for appellant (Saul Ewing, attorneys for appellant; Ms. Rogove, of counsel and on the brief; David C. Kistler, on the brief).
John H. King argued the cause for respondent Atkin Olshin Lawson-Bell (Thompson Becker & Bothwell, Cherry Hill, attorneys; Mr. King, on the brief).
Stephen D. Menard, King of Prussia, PA, argued the cause for respondent Bruce E. Brooks & Associates (Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle & Lombardo, attorneys; Mr. Menard, of counsel and on the brief).
James W. Scott, Jr., Philadelphia, PA, argued the cause for respondent E. Allen Reeves, Inc. (White and Williams, attorneys; Mr. Scott, of counsel and on the brief; Warren E. Kampf, of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Louis A. Bove, Philadelphia, PA, argued the cause for respondent Gallo Masonry, L.L.C. (Bodell, Bove, Grace & Van Horn, attorneys; Mr. Bove, of counsel and on the brief; Jay M. Green, on the brief).
Keith L. Hovey, Woodbridge, argued the cause for respondent Maria Isabel G. Beas (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys; Mr. Hovey, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges LINTNER, S.L. REISNER and C.L. MINIMAN.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
S.L. REISNER, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Trinity Church appeals from four trial court orders dismissing on summary judgment its complaint against an architect and several other defendants based on alleged construction defects. We conclude that plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed because it was filed beyond the statute of limitations which, by contract, commenced on the date of substantial completion of the construction...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
