You are here: / / CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION...
,

CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a contract was not actionable because the consideration for a past or executed promise was not spelled out in it. The court noted that a decision on a motion to dismiss does not become the law of the case in a subsequent motion for summary judgment:

​

General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-1105 provides:

“A promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed.”

It essentially codifies the notion that “[g]enerally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because the detriment did not induce the promise.’ That is, since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise'”… . However, General Obligations Law § 5-1105 makes an exception where the past consideration is explicitly recited in a writing. To qualify for the exception, the description of the consideration must not be “vague” or “imprecise,” nor may extrinsic evidence be employed to assist in understanding the consideration … . * * *

… “[T]he law of the case doctrine does not apply when a motion to dismiss is followed by a summary judgment motion” … . Korff v Corbett, 2017 NY Slip Op 07677, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-1105  (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).
THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-TO-CURE PROVISION BEFORE TERMINATING IT; THE REASON FOR TERMINATION, FAULTY WORK, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE-TO-CURE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT CONTAINED FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS WHICH INDUCED PLAINTIFF TO BUY STOCK IN DEFENDANT’S CORPORATION; THE CLAIMS IN DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT WERE MERE PUFFERY AND WERE NOT ACTIONABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITES ACT OF 1933 (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED.
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST 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

HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON...