You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF...

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF A BUSINESS AND A RELATED LEASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF PREVENTION NOR THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this complex business-sale and lease breach of contract action was properly granted. The transaction involved the sale of an ambulatory surgery business and lease of the premises to the buyer. More specifically, the transaction included an asset purchase agreement, an administrative services agreement, a lease agreement and a personal guarantee. The facts are too involved to fairly summarize. Essentially, the buyers (defendants) defaulted on several aspects of the contracts and their defenses were rejected. The First Department held the terms of the contracts were clear and unambiguous, the doctrine of prevention did not apply, and the frustration of purpose doctrine did not apply:

“`[U]nder the doctrine of prevention, when a party to a contract causes the failure of the performance of the obligation due, it cannot in any way take advantage of that failure'” … . In other words, “a party to a contract cannot rely on the failure of another to perform a condition precedent where he has frustrated or prevented the occurrence of the condition” … . …

“In order to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense” … . Examples of a lease’s purposes being declared frustrated have included situations where the tenant was unable to use the premises as a restaurant until a public sewer was completed, which took nearly three years after the lease was executed … , and where a tenant who entered into a lease of premises for office space could not occupy the premises because the certificate of occupancy allowed only residential use and the landlord refused to correct it  … .

However, “frustration of purpose . . . is not available where the event which prevented performance was foreseeable and provision could have been made for its occurrence” … . Center for Specialty Care, Inc. v CSC Acquisition I, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03631, First Dept 6-25-20

 

You might also like
REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT.
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT DEFENDANT WAS DEPICTED IN THE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS BEING PLAYED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW PROHIBITS THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE ADDRESSES OF HOMELESS SHELTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL... PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY MOTHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD KILLED WHEN WORKING ILLEGALLY...