is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, the owner of a residential cooperative apartment at the defendant Bristol
House, Inc., alleges that renovations that occurred in November 2004 in the unit directly below
his unit caused cracks and other structural damage to the walls and floor of his unit, which persist
and have not been remedied. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover
damages against, among others, the defendants Bristol House, Inc., Garthchester Realty, Ltd., and
RMR Residential Realty, LLC (hereinafter collectively the defendants), alleging, inter alia,
causes of action sounding in breach of contract for failure to keep the building in "good repair" as
required by the proprietary lease, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
The defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the causes of action sounding in breach of
contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability insofar as asserted against them as
time-barred. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants had a continuing duty
to remedy the damage to the building, and that the causes of action were, therefore, tolled
pursuant [*2]to the continuing wrong doctrine. The Supreme
Court granted those branches of the defendants' motion, holding that the continuing wrong
doctrine was not applicable. The plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the
order as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were to dismiss, as time-barred,
the causes of action sounding in breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of
habitability insofar as asserted against Bristol House, Inc.
"In seeking to assert the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim, a moving defendant bears