Brockhurst v. Ryan
2 Misc. 2d 747, 146 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2194 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a contract that does not specify a date or time for performance, the cause of action for a breach accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run only after a reasonable time for performance has expired.
Facts:
- In February 1945, Gerald L. Brockhurst, a portrait painter, and Clendenin J. Ryan entered into an oral agreement for Brockhurst to paint five portraits of Ryan and his family for a total of $28,000.
- Sittings for the portraits began shortly after but were subject to frequent interruptions and delays at the request of Ryan and his family.
- By August 1946, Brockhurst had completed two of the five portraits (Ryan's wife and daughter), for which Ryan paid the agreed price of $11,000.
- The last sitting for any of the remaining portraits occurred in September 1946, for the portrait of Ryan's son, Mike.
- In the spring of 1947, Ryan encountered Brockhurst at a party and asked, "When are we going to get down to these portraits?" to which Brockhurst replied, "Any time you make a date."
- In an April 1948 letter sent at Brockhurst's request, a representative informed Ryan that Brockhurst was anxious to complete the remaining portraits but suggested abandoning the portrait of the youngest son, Cyr, who had grown too old.
- In late 1948 or early 1949, Ryan told the representative by phone that he would contact Brockhurst directly to arrange further sittings.
- Ryan never made himself or his children available for the remaining sittings.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald L. Brockhurst sued Clendenin J. Ryan in a New York trial court, seeking $17,000 for breach of contract.
- Ryan filed a third-party complaint against M. Knoedler & Co., Inc., which was dismissed by the court.
- Ryan asserted the affirmative defenses that the claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds and the Statute of Limitations.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the six-year statute of limitations bar a breach of contract claim where the contract specified no performance date, the last substantive performance occurred more than six years before the suit was filed, but the parties' conduct suggested an ongoing, unhurried relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Geller, J.
No. The statute of limitations does not bar the claim because the cause of action did not accrue until a reasonable time for performance had passed, which, under the circumstances, was after June 24, 1948. The court reasoned that where a contract specifies no performance date, the law implies a 'reasonable time' for performance. The determination of what is 'reasonable' is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each case. Here, the transaction was not a commercial one where time was of the essence; rather, it was performed in an 'atmosphere of unhurried leisure' with many defendant-initiated delays. Ryan never gave notice of repudiation and as late as 1949 indicated he would arrange for more sittings. Given this context, the court found that a reasonable time for performance had not expired by June 1948, meaning the six-year statute of limitations had not yet begun to run. Therefore, the suit filed in June 1954 was timely.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial illustration of how the 'reasonable time' standard for contract performance is applied in a non-commercial setting. It establishes that the determination of 'reasonable time' is a highly fact-specific inquiry, heavily influenced by the parties' course of conduct and the nature of the agreement. The decision demonstrates that mere passive non-performance does not automatically trigger the statute of limitations; the clock starts only when the delay becomes unreasonable under the specific circumstances. This creates flexibility but also introduces a degree of uncertainty for parties in contracts without fixed deadlines, as the accrual of a cause of action is not tied to a specific date but to a judicial interpretation of reasonableness.
