You are here: / / Contract of Adhesion/Unconscionable-Contract Cause of Action Should Have...

Contract of Adhesion/Unconscionable-Contract Cause of Action Should Have Survived Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a hearing was required on respondents’ motion to dismiss the cause of action which alleged a contract of adhesion.  The action was brought against the respondents-operators of “three-quarter houses” by residents who had committed their housing allowances to the operators only to find themselves (according to the complaint) “living in abject and overcrowded conditions with no support services on site:”

A contract of adhesion contains terms that are unfair and nonnegotiable and arises from a disparity of bargaining power or oppressive tactics'” … . ” A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made'” … .

“In determining the conscionability of a contract, no set weight is to be given any one factor; each case must be decided on its own facts” … . “However, [in general, it can be said that] procedural and substantive unconscionability operate on a sliding scale; the more questionable the meaningfulness of choice, the less imbalance in a contract’s terms should be tolerated and vice versa” … . ” The determination of unconscionability is a matter of law for the court to decide'” … . ” Where there is doubt . . . as to whether a contract is fraught with elements of unconscionability, there must be a hearing where the parties have an opportunity to present evidence with regard to the circumstances of the signing of the contract, and the disputed terms’ setting, purpose and effect'” … . ” However, [w]here the significant facts germane to the unconscionability issue are essentially undisputed, the court may determine the issue without a hearing'” … . “Thus, on a motion for summary judgment, [t]he question . . . then is whether the record presents an issue as to the existence of unconscionability which should not be resolved without a hearing'”… . * * *

…[T]he plaintiffs submitted … affidavits of residents who signed the agreements in question and who stated that they signed the subject agreements under conditions that were procedurally unconscionable. Under these circumstances, a hearing was warranted on the issue of unconscionability, and as such, summary judgment should have been denied… .  David v #1 Mktg Serv Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00477, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

You might also like
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED A CHURCH ALLEGING THE CHURCH HELD PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CHURCH WRONGFULLY OUSTED PLAINTIFF FROM THE PROPERTY; RESOLUTION OF THE SUIT WOULD INVOLVE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, NOT RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES; THEREFORE, THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT)
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE.
Expert Affidavit Did Not Raise a Question of Fact 
BECAUSE THE ALLONGE ENDORSED IN BLANK WAS NOT FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC, THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Supreme Court’s Reliance On a Punctuation Error to Support Its Contract Interpretation... Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity