You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE HOME-INSPECTION CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED...
,

ALTHOUGH THE HOME-INSPECTION CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE WAS AWARE OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND AGREED TO THEM; THEREFORE THE UNSIGNED CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE AND PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION PROVISION ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant home-inspection company was entitled to enforcement of a provision in an unsigned contract. The home inspection contract provided that defendant would not be liable if plaintiff failed to timely notify defendant of any alleged defects in the property. Defendant moved for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to notify. The fact that the contract was not signed did not raise a question of fact because plaintiff testified she was aware of the terms of the contract and agreed to them:

“[A]n unsigned contract may be enforceable, provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound” … . Here, the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was “certain” that she looked at the contract “at the time of the inspections,” that she understood the contents of the contract, and that “after reading the agreement before the July 2016 inspection” she “accepted these terms” and paid ARPI its fee. This testimony is bolstered by the fact that the plaintiff signed an identical contract four months earlier for a home inspection performed by the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the July 2016 contract was valid and enforceable … . Cotich v Town of Newburgh, 2022 NY Slip Op 05075, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Although the home inspection contract was not signed, plaintiff testified she was aware of the terms and agreed to them. The contract was therefore enforceable and plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notification provision entitled defendant to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
No Evidence Release Invalidated by Fraud or Duress
UNDER THE CITY CHARTER, THE MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABOLISH A CIVIL SERVICE POSITION; ONLY THE BODY EMPOWERED TO CREATE THE POSITION CAN ABOLISH IT.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND 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 JURY FOUND PLAINTIFF SUFFERED PERMANENT INJURY IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BUT... THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL...