You are here: / / TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS...

TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS BREACH AND REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, determined that the motion to dismiss the breach and repudiation of contract cause of action should not have been granted. The decision is fact-specific and cannot fairly be summarized here. In essence, plaintiff alleged the defendant did not have the right under the contract to refuse to cooperate in the settlement of a claim for the full amount.  The majority concluded the language of the contract did not provide defendant with an unconditional and absolute right to refuse to cooperate by refusing to agree to certain reassignments of claims as part of the settlement:

Characterizing the assignment of the … claims as absolute and unconditional, the dissent … would hold that plaintiff did not have a contractual right to compel [defendant] to reassign those claims to a third party as a condition of a settlement that attributed no value to them. However, contrary to these findings, the assignment was not absolute and unconditional … . Guidance Enhanced Green Terrain, LLC v Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch, 2017 NY Slip Op 00068, 1st Dept 1-5-17

CONTRACT LAW (TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS BREACH AND REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).
SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A STEEL BAR WHICH FELL DURING AN ATTEMPT TO HOIST IT WITH EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT CAUSE FOR THE BAR’S FALLING, NOR DID HE NEED TO SPECIFY THE EQUIPMENT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ORDINANCE OR LAW ENDORSEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE INSURER TO PAY FOR REMEDIATION OF CODE VIOLATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE COVERED DAMAGE.

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

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION... HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE...