Opinion ID: 2470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness Under The Bond

Text: The Sureties argue that Precision's action is untimely under the bond's limitations provision because Fuller ceased work on the construction contract prior to December 17, 2003. But the district court found as a fact that Fuller had not ceased work as of that date. We see no clear error in this finding. In reviewing findings for clear error, we are not allowed to second-guess . . . the trial court's . . . choice between permissible competing inferences, Amalfitano, 533 F.3d at 123 (internal quotation marks omitted), because in that case, the factfinder's choice . . . cannot be clearly erroneous, Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). The record contains not only the punch-lists themselves, which were introduced into evidence, see Sep. 19 Tr. 59, Precision Stone, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 04 Civ. 09996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2006) (Doc. No. 23) (Sep. 19 Tr.); Sep. 20 Tr. 13-15, Precision Stone, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 04 Civ. 09996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2006) (Doc. No. 21) (Sep. 20 Tr.), but also testimony regarding the contents of those lists. This evidence provided adequate support for the district court's determination. For example, one punch list noted that as of January 9, 2004, less than a year prior to the initiation of this action, various railings, grates, and lights had not yet been fully installed and some stonework and asphalt had not yet been properly laid. A former Fuller employee, primarily responsible for completing the punch list, Sep. 20 Tr. at 15, testified that, as distinguished from remedial work, which is usually something that's gone wrong and you have to fix it, id. at 16, the punch lists demonstrated that, at the time of their issuance, certain contracted-for work was not done, id. at 17; see also id. at 66 (testifying that work on the punch lists had been contracted for). In light of that evidence, the Sureties' insistence that the punch-list work consisted of remedial work that was insufficient to toll [the] limitations period, see Sureties Br. 9-10, does not establish clear error. As the Sureties concede, they are bound by the conditions and limitations in the bond. Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Timberline Elec. Supply Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 421 N.Y.S.2d 987, 72 A.D.2d 905 (4th Dep't 1979)). [4] The bond states that an action is timely so long as it is filed within one year of the date on which [Fuller] ceased work on [the construction] contract, Payment Bond 2. Because the Sureties establish no clear error in the district court's finding that as of March 2004, Fuller was still performing physical work on the Project and had consequently not ceased work, Precision Stone I, 472 F.Supp.2d at 581, we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court to the extent the Sureties appeal from it.