You are here: / / THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT,...

THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES, CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT ALONE.

The Second Department determined that El Equity, which financed a line of credit, was a third-party beneficiary of a contract which required El Equity’s approval before funds could be deposited in any accounts other than those designated in the contract between SDS and GBL. El

Equity demonstrated the breach of contract, but was not entitled to summary judgment because the amount of damages was not proven. The Second Department further determined that the failure to deposit funds in violation of the contract will not also support a cause of action for conversion:

​

The evidence in admissible form submitted by El Equity demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the SDS Agreement, and that SDS breached that agreement. ” A non-party [to a contract] may sue for breach of contract only if it is an intended, and not a mere incidental, beneficiary'” …  However, ” the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution'”… . “A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost”…  ” In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement,'” and ” the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract'” … .

Here, El Equity was not a party to the SDS Agreement. However, El Equity established, prima facie, that the SDS Agreement was a valid and binding contract between GBL and SDS, and that El Equity was an intended third-party beneficiary of the SDS Agreement… . * * *

El Equity also demonstrated, prima facie, that SDS breached the SDS Agreement. The SDS Agreement required SDS to “pick up all” MMIS checks “and deposit them into the Escrow Account,” and SDS admittedly did not deposit four MMIS checks into the Escrow Account, but gave those checks directly to GBL. Contrary to SDS’s contention, El Equity established, prima facie, that, to the extent that it sustained any damages, those damages were caused, at least in part, by SDS’s breach of the SDS Agreement … . Greater Bright Light Home Care Servs., Inc. v Jeffries-El, 2017 NY Slip Op 04821, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES)/THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES)/CONVERSION (CONTRACT LAW, CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION CAN NOT BE BASED UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT ALONE)

You might also like
THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE-ORDER COVID TOLLS APPLY TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE, RENDERING THE INDICTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice Suit—Action Time-Barred
PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER STORE CUSTOMER; THE DEFENDANT STORE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS’ USE OF SHOPPING CARTS; ISSUE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) WOULD FORCE THE TOWN TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 IMPROPERLY, SUA SPONTE, ORDERED A FRYE HEARING AFTER WHICH THE... FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING...