The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisades, LLC, 169 A.3d 473

Background

The Palisades at Fort Lee was substantially completed on May 1, 2002; AJD (general contractor) and subcontractors (Forsa, Benfatto, Luxury Floors) performed work on the project.
A/V Acquisitions developed and initially controlled the property, sold it to Old Palisade in 2004, which converted units to condominiums and attached a 2004 Ray Engineering report to the offering statement noting minor issues.
Full unit-owner control of the Condominium Association transferred in July 2006; the Association retained Falcon Group, which issued a June 13, 2007 report identifying construction defects.
The Condominium Association filed suits against AJD and the subcontractors in 2009–2010 alleging defective construction and related torts and warranties.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1’s six-year statute of limitations had expired; trial court granted dismissal (limitations began at substantial completion); Appellate Division reversed (limitations began when unit owners controlled the association and received Falcon report).
The Supreme Court granted certification to resolve when a construction-defect cause of action accrues under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 and remanded for factual findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does a construction-defect claim "accrue" under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1?	Accrual did not occur until unit owners controlled the association and received the Falcon report (June 13, 2007).	Accrual began at substantial completion (May 1, 2002) or at least when prior owners had notice; successor takes no better position.	Accrual occurs when an owner in the chain first knows or reasonably should know of a basis for an actionable claim against an identifiable defendant; apply discovery rule.
Whether a successor owner gets a "reset" of the limitations period upon taking control (condominium association).	Association argued it was entitled to a new accrual date when it gained control and learned of defects.	Defendants argued successors stand in the shoes of predecessors; no reset if prior owner knew.	Successor has no greater rights; limitations run from the first date someone in chain knew or should have known.
Whether discovery within the six-year period requires filing within the remaining time or entitles plaintiff to full six years from discovery.	Association said accrual should start at discovery and get full six years.	Defendants argued plaintiff had to file within remaining time if discovery occurred within six years from substantial completion.	Court adopts Caravaggio/Fox template: plaintiff is normally entitled to the full limitations period from date of accrual (discovery) — not limited to remaining time from substantial completion.
Whether the ten-year statute of repose bars the claims.	Association relied on repose as outer limit but noted suits were filed within ten years.	Defendants argued repose may not cover non-"unsafe" defects.	Repose (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1(a)) begins at substantial completion and sets the outer limit; here claims were within ten years so repose does not bar them; statutory wording concerns are for Legislature.

Key Cases Cited

Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (discovery rule; accrual delayed until plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover basis for claim)
Caravaggio v. D’Agostini, 166 N.J. 237 (accrual when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of basis against identifiable defendant; plaintiff entitled to full limitations period from discovery)
Russo Farms v. Vineland Bd. of Educ., 144 N.J. 84 (applied discovery rule in construction-defect context; substantial completion typically starts limitations unless plaintiff, despite diligence, was unaware)
Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434 (early discovery-rule exposition where cause did not accrue until plaintiff learned of injury)
Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122 (refined discovery-rule application; plaintiff normally entitled to full limitations period upon discovery)
O’Keeffe v. Snyder, 83 N.J. 478 (successor stands in shoes of prior owner for accrual/statute-of-limitations purposes)