You are here: / UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT.

Search Results

/ , , ,

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT.

The Second Department determined the owner of a parking lot (Berkshire) could assert cross claims against the lessee of the parking lot (Livingston), even though the lessee did not know the lease was entered into by an undisclosed agent of the owner. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. The owner cross-claimed for indemnification by the lessee:

Berkshire may enforce provisions of Livingston’s lease for the parking lot. An undisclosed principal may sue on a contract made in the name of its agent unless there is a showing of fraud … . Here, Livingston’s submissions confirmed that Berkshire owned the property that Livingston was renting, and that the lease was valid. Livingston does not assert that it would not have entered into the lease had it known then that Berkshire was, in fact, the owner. Although Livingston was not aware that Berkshire had authorized an agent to enter into the lease on its behalf, Livingston cannot escape liability on the contract by claiming ignorance of the undisclosed principal’s existence … . Simmons v Berkshire Equity, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03208, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CONTRACT LAW (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST LESSEE BASED ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)

/ ,

MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his bill of particulars to reflect a different date for the injury allegedly caused by defendant’s employees during a carpet delivery should not have been granted. The motion was made on the eve of trial more than four years after the action was commenced and after plaintiff had repeatedly asserted the date during discovery. It turned out that no delivery was made by defendant on the date alleged in the pleadings:

​

“Generally, [i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'”… . Where, however, the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious… . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … .

Here, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill of particulars more than four years after the action was commenced, and almost a year after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars, as the defendant demonstrated that it would suffer significant prejudice as a result of the unexplained delay … . Tabak v Shaw Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03213, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE  (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO AMEND  (NEGLIGENCE, MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction were not met in this dispute between landlord and tenant. The court further noted that a preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo and ordering the landlord to accept a reduced rent while the action was pending was not proper:

​

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief staying termination of the lease, and in further directing the plaintiff to pay rent in the reduced sum of $10,000 per month in lieu of the full amount of rent due under the lease. Although the plaintiff may ultimately be successful on the merits, it failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities favor an injunction since its alleged damages are compensable in money damages and capable of calculation … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding its inability to pay the full rent under the lease were insufficient to establish irreparable injury … . Furthermore, the court went beyond preserving the status quo, which is the essence of a preliminary injunction, and impermissibly rewrote the terms of the lease by directing that the plaintiff be permitted to pay only part of the rent due under the lease while it continued to occupy the premises … . Soundview Cinemas, Inc. v AC I Soundview, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03209, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/LANDLORD-TENANT (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)

/ , ,

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.

​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew in this rear-end collision case should not have been deemed a motion to reargue and denied. Plaintiff presented new evidence which was not available at the time the original motion was heard. The new evidence was sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion:

​

The new evidence included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which had not been submitted to the court on the prior motion, as her deposition had not been completed until after the prior motion had been decided. Therefore, the motion was correctly denominated by the defendant as one for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, this new evidence raised triable issues of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to change the court’s prior determination, and should have resulted in the court, upon renewal, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Donovan v Rizzo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/REARGUE, MOTION TO  (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)

/ ,

HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.

The Second Department noted that hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion but, to raise a question fact, hearsay alone is not enough. Dindiyal v Dindiyal, 2017 NY Slip Op 03152, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY,(HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)  

/ ,

CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.

The Second Department determined the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan did not have a res judicata effect upon an action by plaintiff bank to require the recording of a mortgage that was pending when defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings were commenced:

​

The plaintiff commenced this action in June 2013, inter alia, to direct the recording of a mortgage allegedly executed in September 2006 to encumber real property owned by the defendants … (the McKennas), and for a judgment declaring that that mortgage is superior in priority over other recorded mortgages on the property. On or about September 24, 2013, the McKennas filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy … , … automatically stay[ing] this action pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). By order dated August 25, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court reclassified the plaintiff’s claim, for the purposes of that court, from “secured” to “unsecured,” and terminated the automatic stay for cause as to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could continue the instant action through the entry of judgment. * * *

While an order confirming a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan may constitute a final judgment on the merits … , the res judicata effect of a confirmed plan does not apply when a state court action concerning the validity of a lien remains unresolved at the time the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced … . Here, the instant action was pending when the McKennas filed their bankruptcy petition, and, therefore, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the subsequent confirmation of the amended Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan had no res judicata effect on the instant action. U.S. Bank N.A. v McKenna, 2017 NY Slip Op 03215, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RES JUDICATA, BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/BANKRUPTCY PLAN (RES JUDICATA, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/RES JUDICATA (BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)

/ ,

FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS.

The Second Department, in a loss-transfer action between two insurers, noted that the failure to apply for a stay of arbitration waives any claim that the arbitrator has exceeded his/her powers:

​

The petitioner’s contention that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.11(6), its “good faith” retroactive denial of insurance coverage divested the arbitrator of jurisdiction is without merit (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 976, 977-978). Insurance Law § 5105(b) provides that arbitration is the only forum in which a loss-transfer claim may be litigated … . Moreover, “the contention that a claim proposed to be submitted to arbitration is in excess of the arbitrator’s power is waived unless raised by an application for a stay” … . By failing to apply for a stay of arbitration before arbitration, the petitioner waived its contention that the claim is not arbitrable under Insurance Law § 5105 … . Matter of Infinity Indem. Ins. Co. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03177, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

ARBITRATION (FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)/INSURANCE (ARBITRATION OF LOSS-TRANSFER CLAIM BETWEEN TWO INSURERS, FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)/LOSS-TRANSFER CLAIMS (INSURANCE LAW, ARBITRATION, FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)

/ ,

FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS.

The Second Department, in a loss-transfer action between two insurers, noted that the failure to apply for a stay of arbitration waives any claim that the arbitrator has exceeded his/her powers:

​

The petitioner’s contention that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.11(6), its “good faith” retroactive denial of insurance coverage divested the arbitrator of jurisdiction is without merit (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 976, 977-978). Insurance Law § 5105(b) provides that arbitration is the only forum in which a loss-transfer claim may be litigated … . Moreover, “the contention that a claim proposed to be submitted to arbitration is in excess of the arbitrator’s power is waived unless raised by an application for a stay” … . By failing to apply for a stay of arbitration before arbitration, the petitioner waived its contention that the claim is not arbitrable under Insurance Law § 5105 … . Matter of Infinity Indem. Ins. Co. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03177, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

ARBITRATION (FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)/INSURANCE (ARBITRATION OF LOSS-TRANSFER CLAIM BETWEEN TWO INSURERS, FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)/LOSS-TRANSFER CLAIMS (INSURANCE LAW, ARBITRATION, FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A STAY OF ARBITRATION WAIVES ANY CLAIM THE ARBITRATOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS/HER POWERS)

/

INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The First Department determined defendant bus company’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on an oily substance on the step of a bus. Plaintiff’s expert argued the handrails were inadequate, but the statutes and regulations cited related to buildings, not buses. Although the internal rules of defendant bus company required the driver to assist passengers off the bus, that rule exceeded the ordinary care standard and could not be the basis for liability. Ziman-Scheuer v Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03124, 1st Dept 4-25-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/STANDARD OF CARE (INTERNAL RULES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/INTERNAL RULES (NEGLIGENCE, STANDARD OF CARE, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

/

DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED.

The First Department determined the flawed procedure leading to sentencing defendant as a second felony offender required remittal for resentencing:

​

… [D]efendant never admitted the prior felony conviction upon which his second violent felony adjudication was predicated, and the court never adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Moreover, there is no record evidence that the predicate felony statement was filed prior to sentencing, as required by CPL 400.15(2) … . Further, the record does not reflect that defendant was given a copy of the predicate felony statement, as CPL 400.15(3) requires. Thus, the record is devoid of any indication that defendant received adequate notice that the prior felony conviction in question would be used as the basis for enhancement of his sentence or had an opportunity to be heard as to the validity of that conviction … . The brief, incidental, logistical comments made by Supreme Court, the clerk and the prosecutor in defendant’s presence during the plea proceedings concerning the existence of a predicate felony statement are insufficient to constitute substantial compliance with CPL 400.15 requirements … . People v Traylor, 2017 NY Slip Op 03111, 1st Dept 4-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)/SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)

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