You are here: / / THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS...
,

THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint seeking a judicial determination whether the contingent resource payment (CRP) agreement was breached when Exxon purchased InterOil Corporation was properly dismissed. Exxon successfully argued that plaintiffs’ only recourse was contractual under the terms of the CRP. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

[The CRP] § 8.05’s penultimate sentence not only provides that plaintiffs cannot bring a class action to challenge any aspect of the CRP agreement, but it also bars them from bringing any action or proceeding altogether, “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement . . . no individual Holder or other group of Holders will be entitled to exercise such rights.” Such “rights,” written in the plural as opposed to in the singular, refer to those set out in the beginning of the sentence — namely, “institut[ing] any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Agreement.” Mulacek v ExxonMobil Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02829, First De[t 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here a provision in the contract providing that no court action for breach of contract could be brought, a so-called “no action” clause, precluded plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

 

You might also like
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S BRINGING MULTIPLE MERITLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEYS OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS WARRANTED SANCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT STATED VALID COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)
SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING.

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

WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE... BUYER WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF “INCLUSIONARY...