# E. A. Williams, Inc. v. Russo Development Corp.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · February 20, 1980 · 82 N.J. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719495

## Case

- **Full name:** E. A. Williams, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Russo Development Corp., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey Et Al., Defendants, and Frank W. Koestner, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** February 20, 1980
- **Citations:** 82 N.J. 160; 411 A.2d 697; 1980 N.J. LEXIS 1322
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Handler, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719495

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the court "appl[ies] the adjectival *519clause relating to "defective and unsafe" conditions as qualifying all of the situations mentioned in the statute."
- explaining that the court "appl[ies] the adjectival clause relating to "defective and unsafe" conditions as qualifying all of the situations mentioned in the statute."
- holding, prior to 2001 amendment, that error in survey did not create a defective and unsafe condition and thus N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 inapplicable
- discussing reasons behind Legislature’s enacting such a statute

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, J.
(concurring in result).
I agree that there should be a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $7,000, but not for the reasons given in the majority opinion. I would hold that surveying work is not a part of the “design, planning, supervision or construction of an improvement to real property” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1. Defendant Koestner, who made the erroneous survey (not discovered for some 18 years), is therefore not protected by the 10-year statutory limitation on bringing suit.
The majority holds that surveying work is included in the above language but that the 10-year limitation applies only when the work creates a “defective and unsafe condition.” This is a misreading of the statute. The phrase “arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property” does not modify the language “deficiency in the design, planning, supervision or construction of an improvement to real property.” Rather, it relates only to an action “for any injury to property, real or personal, or for an injury to the person, or for bodily injury or wrongful death.” In short, I read the statute to refer to two separate and distinct kinds of action. The limiting clause, relied on by the majority, relates only to the second.
I would hold that surveying work is not part of “design, planning” etc. as set forth in the statute and that therefore the 10-year limitation is inapplicable.
Justice POLLOCK joins in this concurrence.
SULLIVAN and POLLOCK, JJ., concurring in the result.
For affirmance —Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 7.
For reversal —None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719495. Public record. Not legal advice.