You are here: / / THE BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...
,

THE BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the breach of the implied covenant of good faith should have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract action:

Supreme Court … erred by denying that part of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A review of the allegations in the amended complaint discloses that this cause of action is based upon the same set of facts and seeks similar damages as the breach of contract cause of action. In view of this, the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and, therefore, it should have been dismissed … . Shmaltz Brewing Co., LLC v Dog Cart Mgt. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01086, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

You might also like
GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s Witnesses Despite Taking a Position Similar to Petitioner’s
Municipal Action Re: a Mining Permit Not Ripe for Review
AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED.
People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated
SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Review of Planning Board’s SEQRA Determination and Zoning Board’s Granting a Variance
THE JUDGE, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS SENTENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM MAKING “ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS” WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (THIRD 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

THE ROLLED UP MAT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF... THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE...