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; see Affordable Hous. Assoc., Inc. v Town of Brookhaven, 150 AD3d 800, 802). "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 AD3d 599, 601). Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants' contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises (see Kaymakcian v Board of Mgrs. of Charles House Condominium, 49 AD3d 407; Measom v Greenwich & Perry St. Hous. Corp., 42 AD3d 366; 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus, 289 AD2d 145). However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff's recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action (see Kaymakcian v Board of Mgrs. of Charles House Condominium, 49 AD3d at 407-408; see also Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp., 46 NY2d 606, 611-612; Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1228).