the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the
cause of action has expired" (Collins
Bros. Moving Corp. v Pierleoni, 155 AD3d 601, 603 [2017]; see Stein Indus., Inc. v Certilman Balin
Adler & Hyman, LLP, 149 AD3d 788, 789 [2017]). Here, the defendants
established, prima facie, that the alleged damage occurred when the renovations were performed
in November 2004, and that the commencement of this action on April 15, 2016, was beyond the
six-year statute of limitations applicable to causes of action for breach of contract or breach of
the implied warranty of habitability (see CPLR 213 [2]; Roman v Emigrant Sav.
Bank-Brooklyn/Queens, 111 AD3d 692, 694 [2013]; Witherbee Ct. Assoc. v
Greene, 7 AD3d 699, 701 [2004]). Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a
question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations is tolled or is otherwise inapplicable
(see Collins Bros. Moving Corp. v Pierleoni, 155 AD3d at 603; Stein Indus., Inc. v
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 149 AD3d at 789).
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the
continuing wrong doctrine rendered a portion of the subject causes of action timely. The
continuing wrong doctrine "is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and
serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last
wrongful act" (Selkirk v State of New York, 249 AD2d 818, 819 [1998]; see Affordable Hous. Assoc., Inc. v Town
of Brookhaven, 150 AD3d 800, 802 [2017]). "In contract actions, the doctrine is applied
to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching
party" (Henry v Bank of Am., 147