You are here: / / THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT INDICATED BUYER, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY...
, , ,

THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT INDICATED BUYER, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WAS CONTAMINATED BY OIL, WOULD INDEMNIFY SELLER FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BUYER, WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT ‘ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY TO BE FORMED,’ WAS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the terms of the purchase contract for property contaminated by oil indicated the buyer would indemnify the seller for costs associated with the condition of the property. The Fourth Department further held there was a question of fact whether the buyer signed the contract in his individual capacity in that he signed “on behalf of an entity to be formed:”

The purchase contract provided that a “Phase One Environmental report” had been completed on the property and that Marks, the “Buyer” of the property, was in receipt of the environmental report and “approve[d] of same.” The contract further provided that Atkin was the “Seller,” the property “was not in compliance with federal, state and/or local laws/ordinances,” the Buyer agreed to purchase the property “as is,” the “Buyer accept[ed] the property as is, with no representations or warranties as to environmental conditions” of the property, and the Buyer “release[d] and indemnifie[d] Seller with respect to any claims as to environmental conditions on or related to the property.” Thus, the terms of the contract establish that, prior to entering into the contract, both Atkin and Marks were generally aware of the property’s historical environmental contamination by the Exxon defendants and their predecessor, and the language in the indemnification provision, considered in light of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of the sale of the property, clearly and unambiguously expresses the intent of the parties that the Buyer would indemnify the Seller with respect to any claims regarding environmental conditions related to the property … . …

Although it is well settled that “[a]n individual who acts on behalf of a nonexistent corporation can be held personally liable” … , the determination “[w]hether a person is personally obligated on a preincorporation transaction depends on the intention of the parties” … . One Flint St., LLC v Exxon Mobil Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00752, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO ALLEGATION EMPLOYEES WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, NO ALLEGATION MALICE WAS DEFENDANT’S SOLE MOTIVATION (FOURTH DEPT).
Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business
CHILDREN DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.
Grandparents Had Standing to Seek Visitation
THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY (A WATER BOTTLE UNDER THE ACCELERATOR) WAS OF THE DEFENDANT’S OWN MAKING; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT DRIVER’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A MUCH HARSHER SENTENCE SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED AT TRIAL AMOUNTED TO COERCION RENDERING THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH 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

EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED... PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE WHEN INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S...