precedents cited by defendant is particular to the nonpayment context, and do not
necessarily carry over to other grounds for terminating proprietary co-op leases, such as
failure to maintain insurance. (See e.g. Semans Family Ltd. Partnership v
Kennedy, 177 Misc 2d 345, 350 [Civ Ct, NY County 1998].) Defendant does not
provide any authority for the proposition that conditional-limitation provisions in
residential leases are categorically unenforceable.
C. Whether Plaintiff's Claims are Barred by the Statute of Limitations
Defendant asserts as an affirmative defense that plaintiff's claims are barred by
CPLR 213's six-year statute of limitations for contract claims. Plaintiff contends in
response that defendant's failure to obtain insurance constitutes a continuing wrong. But
even if the lack of insurance is not a continuing wrong, the claim would still be
timely. Plaintiff has represented (both in the notice of default and the complaint in this
action) that the insurance coverage for the apartment first lapsed in 2019. This action was
brought in 2023, less than four years later—well within the applicable six-year
limitations period.
Defendant also contends that plaintiff's claims are barred by laches, because it served
the notice of termination in March 2022 but did not bring this action until July 2023.
(See NYSCEF No. 76 at 16-17.) This contention is unpersuasive. "Laches is an
equitable bar, based on a lengthy neglect or omission to assert a right and the resulting
prejudice to an adverse party. The mere lapse of time, without a showing of prejudice, is
insufficient to sustain a claim of laches. Prejudice may be demonstrated by a showing of
injury, change of position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from