You are here: / THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAN BE APPLIED TO BYPASS THE STATUTE...

Search Results

/ ,

THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAN BE APPLIED TO BYPASS THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS IF THE RESULT OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE, THE RESULT HERE WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE. ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissent (raising a different issue), agreeing with the Third Department, held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied to bypass the Statute of Frauds if enforcing the Statute of Frauds would lead to an unconscionable result. Here, however, disagreeing with the Third Department, the Court of Appeals found that enforcement of the Statute of Frauds would not lead to an unconscionable result. The case involved devised property with a mortgage on it. The decedent, in an earlier will, provided that the mortgage should be paid off with estate funds. However, that provisions was not included in a subsequent will. The petitioners sought to enforce an oral agreement to pay off the mortgage. Because the value of the property was about three times the amount of the mortgage, the Court of Appeals reasoned the result was not unconscionable and the Statute of Frauds should be enforced:

“The Statute of Frauds was designed to guard against the peril of perjury; to prevent the enforcement of unfounded fraudulent claims. But, as Professor Williston observed: ‘The Statute of Frauds was not enacted to afford persons a means of evading just obligations; nor was it intended to supply a cloak of immunity to hedging litigants lacking integrity; nor was it adopted to enable defendants to interpose the Statute as a bar to a contract fairly, and admittedly, made'” … ,

In other words, equity “will not permit the statute of frauds to be used as an instrument of fraud” … .

We hold that where the elements of promissory estoppel are established, and the injury to the party who acted in reliance on the oral promise is so great that enforcement of the statute of frauds would be unconscionable, the promisor should be estopped from reliance on the statute of frauds. * * *

The standard for unconscionability where one party is seeking to avoid the statute of frauds must be equally demanding, lest the statute of frauds be rendered a nullity. …

“The strongly held public policy reflected in New York’s Statute of Frauds would be severely undermined if a party could be estopped from asserting it every time a court found that some unfairness would otherwise result. For this reason, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is properly reserved for that limited class of cases where the circumstances are such as to render it unconscionable to deny the promise upon which the plaintiff has relied” … . Matter of Hennel, 2017 NY Slip Op 05266, CtApp 6-29-17

 

/ ,

JUDGE’S INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice trial, determined the judge’s response to jury questions was inadequate and improper. The judge did not respond at all to one question. And the judge’s response was different from the response discussed with counsel:

… [I]n addition to Supreme Court’s failure to respond in the manner it had discussed with counsel, the response given did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury. Indeed, the jury note requested “a clear explanation of ‘care and treatment,'” and also asked whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy? Or only the physical ‘care & tx’ given?” Importantly, the question of whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy?” was written by the jury as a stand alone question. The jury’s multiple questions clearly demonstrated that the jurors were confused as to whether, and in what manner, they were permitted to consider the alleged lack of documentation in determining whether defendant deviated from the standard of care. By failing to provide clarification on this point and by stating, matter-of-factly, that care and treatment included only the physical treatment and care given, Supreme Court precluded the jury from fairly considering a critical issue presented at trial … . Meyer v Saint Francis Hosp., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 05286, 3rd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS ESCALATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she was walking up a stopped escalator when it suddenly started moving downward, causing her to fall. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a question of fact:

“Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … . In order to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must show that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and that it was not due to any voluntary act or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “To rely on res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury. It is enough that the evidence supporting the three conditions afford a rational basis for concluding that it is more likely than not’ that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that, once this particular escalator is stopped, it will not reset itself or otherwise restart on its own. Someone has to restart the escalator by physically using a specific key at the top or bottom of the escalator in order for the escalator to start moving again. Similarly, there was evidence that the only possible way to reverse the direction of the escalator was to use that specific key. Only Port Authority employees had access to the key, which was kept in a locked cabinet in the office of a unit maintenance supervisor. The fact that the escalator was open to the public does not remove it from the exclusive control of the Port Authority because the mechanism for controlling the escalator was locked and accessible only by a specific key … . Ramjohn v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 05254, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK FROM BEHIND, NO EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was in the bicycle lane when he was struck from behind by defendant’s (Reyes’) car. There was no evidence plaintiff was comparatively negligent:

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . Thus, “a plaintiff has a twofold burden that trial courts must bear in mind when determining motions for summary judgment, because more than one actor may be a proximate cause of a single accident” … . The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the jury to decide… . Where the movant has established his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party may defeat the motion for summary judgment by submitting sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party’s comparative fault … .

Here, the evidence submitted on the plaintiff’s motion, which included the deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and Reyes, demonstrated, prima facie, that Reyes was negligent as a matter of law because he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(a)… . The deposition testimony showed that Reyes struck the rear of the plaintiff’s bicycle while making a right turn from Wythe Avenue onto North 6th Street. The plaintiff was in the bicycle lane and ahead of the defendants’ vehicle when the accident occurred. This evidence demonstrated that Reyes failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff, that the turn could not be made with reasonable safety, and that Reyes failed to see that which he should have seen. The evidence submitted in support of the motion also demonstrated that Reyes’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the subject accident, without any comparative negligence on the plaintiff’s part. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Harth v Reyes, 2017 NY Slip Op 05204, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS. ​

The Second Department determined an exposed tree root was an open and obvious condition. Plaintiffs’ slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed:

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property”… . However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the tree root was an open and obvious condition and inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and was known to the injured plaintiff prior to the accident … . . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Commender v Strathmore Ct. Home Owners Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 0519, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attached to the side of a tanker truck and alleged the fall was caused by the design of the ladder and the absence of safety device. Because the Labor Law 200 cause of action was based upon the manner in which the work was performed, the fact that defendants did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work entitled defendants to summary judgment. The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, etc.:

“When the methods or materials of the work are at issue, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had . . . unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work'” … . A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed … . …

The … defendants … established, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) causes of action asserted against each of them by showing that the plaintiff’s work did not constitute erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Kearney v Dynegy, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05209, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the umbrella policy had been cancelled for non-payment just hours before plaintiff (Garcia) was struck by the car owned by the insured, Rakowski. The Second Department rejected the argument that the insurance contract was divisible. The GEICO policy in effect was a $2,000,000 umbrella policy which represented an increase from a prior $1,000,000 policy. The additional premium ($199) for the $2,000,000 policy had not been paid, but the premium in an amount equal to the premium for the prior $1,000,000 policy ($306) had been paid. The Second Department held that the $1,000,000 coverage was no longer available. Only the $2,000,000 policy was in effect, and that was cancelled for failure to pay the additional $199 premium:

Garcia argues, and our dissenting colleagues would conclude, that, because of how the premiums were set out in the Amended Declarations, there is an ambiguity as to whether Rakowski received a policy for $2,000,000 or $1,000,000, or as to whether the policy was divisible or severable as to the amount of coverage. We disagree. The fact that the premium was separately stated for the increase in the coverage limit is irrelevant here. The $1,000,000 renewal proposal of the policy from the previous year had already been sent out before Rakowski asked for an increase in the amount of coverage to $2,000,000. The “Amended Declarations,” which, by their terms, “SUPERSEDE[D] ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION” for the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, were sent to Rakowski after she asked for the changes to her policy. Thus, the additional billing, which separated the original premium from the amount attributable to the increase, was unremarkable and did not give rise to an ambiguity in the policy that Rakowski had asked for and GEICO agreed to provide: a liability limit of $2,000,000 as of the beginning of the new policy period. Garcia is not seeking to divide Rakowski’s policy, but, in effect, to rewrite it to provide what Rakowski never asked for: a policy with coverage of only $1,000,000.

As Garcia points out, forfeiture is not favored in the law… , and, where cancellation of an entire policy would result in forfeiture, courts may be reluctant to hold that an insurance contract is not divisible … . There is, however, no forfeiture here. Rakowski asked for, and received, a $2,000,000 policy, and she had $2,000,000 in coverage from the outset of the policy period, October 10, 2005. Because she only paid part of the premium, her coverage was cancelled, upon notice, when the prorated premium for the coverage she contracted for was exhausted. In other words, Rakowski got everything she paid for, and she forfeited nothing. That Rakowski “just missed” being insured for the injuries caused to Garcia is unfortunate, but nonetheless irrelevant to this analysis. GEICO sent its cancellation notice more than six months before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia. We are not free to alter the meaning of the policy to avoid the result caused by Rakowski’s nonpayment of the premium for her $2,000,000 policy … . Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05202, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED THE REVOCATION OF THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREBY STOPPING THE RUNNING OF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department determined the lender had raised a question of fact whether it had revoked its election to accelerate the debt by withdrawing a prior foreclosure action. The six-year statute of limitations began to run when the debt was accelerated by the first foreclosure action. If the withdrawal of that action revoked the debt acceleration, the statute would have stopped running at that point rendering the instant action timely:

[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due, and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt'” … . A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action … .

… [T]he defendant submitted proof that, on August 16, 2011, [the lender] moved for, and on September 22, 2011, was granted, an order that discontinued the foreclosure action, canceled the notice of pendency, and vacated the judgment of foreclosure and sale it had been granted. The defendant thereby raised a triable issue of fact … as to whether [the lender’s] motion “constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” …  Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, this case is distinguishable from the cases in which, because “[t]he prior foreclosure action was never withdrawn by the lender, but rather, dismissed . . . by the court, [i]t cannot be said that [the] dismissal by the court constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” … . NMNT Realty Corp. v Knoxville 2012 Trust, 2017 NY Slip Op 05230, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father had been deprived of his right to counsel in mother’s relocation-petition proceeding. Father appeared for the hearing and told the court he had retained an attorney but the attorney could not attend that day. The court went ahead with the hearing:

After the court granted assigned counsel’s request to be relieved, it adjourned the hearing until June 24, 2016, so that the father could retain counsel. On June 24, 2016, the father told the court that he had retained an attorney but that the attorney could not be in court that day. The court, however, proceeded with the hearing after stating that it had no choice but to proceed.

We agree with the father’s contention that he was deprived of his statutory right to counsel … . Under the circumstances, instead of ordering the hearing to proceed, the Family Court should have granted an adjournment … . Accordingly, reversal is required, without regard to the merits of the father’s position, and we remit the matter … for a new hearing and new determination thereafter … . Matter of Charbonneau v Charbonneau, 2017 NY Slip Op 05221, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED BY FATHER, WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, AFTER MOTHER ASKED TO APPEAR AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of custody to father, which father had not requested, when mother asked to appear at a hearing by telephone was improper. The hearing was to determine father’s allegation mother had violated the visitation provisions of the consent order awarding custody to her. The child had appealed. The best interests of the child are paramount and don’t appear to have been considered by the court:

The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child … . “In order to modify a consent order granting sole custody to a parent, there must be a showing of a change [in] circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child'” … . “Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the [child], and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interests of the child” … . Reversal or modification of an existing custody order “should not be a weapon wielded as a means of punishing a recalcitrant” or contemptuous parent … . Moreover, where no party has moved for a change in custody, a court may not modify an existing custody order in a non-emergency situation absent notice to the parties, and without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to present evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly modified the consent order by changing custody from the mother to the father without the father having sought that relief in the petition, and without any apparent consideration of the child’s best interests … . The court’s award of custody to the father under the circumstances of this case also was improper in light of the father’s statements during the proceedings that he did not have a steady place to live with the child and that he did not wish to make an application for custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … , for further proceedings on the father’s violation petition. We caution the Supreme Court to be mindful that determining the best interest of a child is a weighty responsibility, and that it ordinarily should not make such a determination without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Matter of Noel v Melle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05226, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

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