You are here: / ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the breach of contract allegations were precluded by the statute of frauds, the related causes of action for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, Peter, and defendant, Lisa, were both named as beneficiaries in their mother's, Madeline's, will. However, when Peter was in the midst of divorce proceedings, Madeline made Lisa the sole beneficiary because she did not want Peter's wife to claim any assets in her estate should she die before the divorce was final.  Lisa orally agreed to split the estate upon Madeline's death in return for Peter's promise to pay Madeline's estate taxes. Peter paid the estate taxes and Lisa reneged on the deal:

Although the breach of contract causes of action cannot stand, the complaint sufficiently states a claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (i) a sufficiently clear and unambiguous promise; (ii) reasonable reliance on the promise; and (iii) injury caused by the reliance … . If a contract is barred by the statute of frauds, a promissory estoppel claim is viable in the limited set of circumstances where unconscionable injury results from the reliance placed on the alleged promise … . * * *

The factual allegations of the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action for unjust enrichment with respect to Peter's payment of Madeline's estate taxes and Lisa's life insurance premiums. To establish unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was enriched, at the plaintiff's expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered … . Here, the complaint's allegations show that Lisa was enriched at Peter's expense because Peter paid the estate taxes and insurance premiums, despite Lisa's being the sole beneficiary of the will, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to allow Lisa to retain that windfall.

This theory of unjust enrichment is not precluded by the statute of frauds because it is not an attempt to enforce the oral contract but instead seeks to recover the amount by which Lisa was enriched at Peter's expense … . Castellotti v Free, 2016 NY Slip Op 01625, 1st Dept 3-8-16

CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS);/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED BY STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

/

PETITION SEEKING DISCOVERY BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION RESPONDENT HELD ASSETS OF THE ESTATE PROPERLY DENIED, PETITIONERS DID NOT MEET THEIR INITIAL BURDEN.

After carefully considering all the allegations (not summarized here), the Third Department determined the petitioners (children of the decedent) did not meet their burden of showing respondent (another child of the decedent who had lived with decedent) held any property which was an asset of the estate. The petition seeking discovery pursuant to Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA) 2103 was therefore properly denied:

SCPA 2103 establishes a discovery procedure by which a fiduciary can identify and recover estate assets held by a third party … . The fiduciary bears the burden to prove that property held by a respondent is an estate asset; only when that obligation has been satisfied does the burden shift to the respondent to prove the proper disposition of the disputed property. We agree with Surrogate's Court that petitioners did not satisfy this initial burden and failed to establish grounds for further inquiry. Dwyer v Valachovic, 2016 NY Slip Op 01542, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PETITIONERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENT HELD ASSETS OF THE ESTATE, PETITION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 PROPERLY DENIED)/SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (PETITIONERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENT HELD ASSETS OF THE ESTATE, PETITION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 PROPERLY DENIED)

/ , ,

ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE FOR BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined an architect, Perkins, could be sued for both breach of contract and negligence in a lawsuit stemming from the settling of a building and other structures in the vicinity of new construction. The court also concluded the plaintiff city, although not mentioned in the contract with the architect, had raised a question of fact whether the city was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. With respect to when a professional-party to a contract can be liable in tort, the court wrote:

Perkins, as architect, may be subject to tort liability based on a failure to exercise due care in the performance of its duties. In making this determination, the court is to look at the nature of the injury and whether the plaintiff is merely seeking the benefit of its agreement. Where the plaintiff is merely seeking the benefit of its agreement, it is limited to a contract claim … .

Where, however, “the particular project . . . is so affected with the public interest that the failure to perform competently can have catastrophic consequences,” a professional may be subject to tort liability as well … . Indeed, “[t]his is one of the most significant elements in determining whether the nature of the type of services rendered gives rise to a duty of reasonable care independent of the contract itself” (… citing Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 553 [1992]). As the Court explained in Sommer, “[I]t is policy, not the parties' contract, that gives rise to a duty of care” … . The “nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” are also considered … .

Here, there is a factual question whether Perkins assumed an independent legal duty as an architect to perform its work in a manner consistent with the generally accepted standard of professional care in its industry. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01546, 1st Dept 3-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/CONTRACT LAW (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/ARCHITECTS (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)

/

SIDEWALK DEFECT TOO TRIVIAL TO BE ACTIONABLE.

The Third Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly granted.  Defendant's demonstrated the defect in the sidewalk was trivial and the plaintiff's expert did not identify any relevant code, standard, or accepted-practice violation:

A property owner “'may not be cast in damages for negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection'” … . “Whether a defect is so trivial to preclude liability depends on the particular facts of each case and requires consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect and the circumstances surrounding the injury, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect as well as the time, place and circumstances of the injury” … .

* * * Photographs of the portion of the sidewalk at issue demonstrate that it is relatively smooth and show only a slight height differential between the adjacent slabs of concrete, which were of different shades. Such evidence satisfied defendant's initial burden of making a prima facie showing that any alleged defect in the sidewalk was too trivial to be actionable … . Chirumbolo v 78 Exch. St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01537, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SIDEWALK DEFECT TOO TRIVIAL TO BE ACTIONABLE)

/

RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when thrown from a horse during a recreational ride at defendant’s stable. Plaintiff was deemed to have assumed the risk of being thrown from the horse:

The risk of a horse acting in an unintended manner resulting in the rider being thrown is a risk inherent in the sport of horseback riding … . There is no evidence that defendant stable was reckless, nor were there any concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . To the extent plaintiffs’ expert opined otherwise, such opinion was conclusory, since it did not rely on any rules, regulations, laws or industry standards, and therefore, it fails to raise a triable issue of fact … . Blumenthal v Bronx Equestrian Ctr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01545, 1st Dept 3-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (RIDER ASSUMED RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)/HORSES (RIDER ASSUMED RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)

/ ,

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ELIMINATION OF POSITION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH; NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS.

The Third Department determined the petitioner did not demonstrate the elimination of his position with the parks maintenance department was done in bad faith or to circumvent the Civil Service Law. The Third Department concluded the town violated the Open Meetings Law when it eliminated petitioner’s position, but the nature of the violation (mere negligence) did not warrant invalidating the town’s actions:

“[A] public employer may, in the absence of bad faith, collusion or fraud, abolish positions for purposes of economy or efficiency” … . Respondent explained through the affidavits of its Supervisor and a member of its Town Board that because its parks maintenance department consisted of only petitioner and one part-time laborer, it could achieve greater economy and efficiency by abolishing the supervisory position in favor of hiring additional laborers. Petitioner’s managerial duties were shifted to the Supervisor and two full-time and one part-time laborer positions were created at an overall cost savings.

The burden was then on petitioner to demonstrate that his position was eliminated in bad faith or as a subterfuge to circumvent his rights under the Civil Service Law … . However, the mere reassignment of duties, in and of itself, does not constitute proof of bad faith … . Nor is there any indication in the record of any personal or political animosities that would suggest some deceitful purpose of ousting and replacing petitioner. Rather, petitioner’s conclusory and unsupported assertions fail to refute the Town Board’s showing that its actions were part of a good faith effort to reorganize a municipal department for the purposes of reducing costs and increasing efficiency … .

* * * “[T]he record does not suggest that the [Town Board’s] failure to comply with the precise requirements of the Open Meetings Law was anything more than mere negligence,” which does not constitute good cause to invalidate the Town Board’s otherwise permissible actions … . Matter of Cutler v Town of Mamakating, 2016 NY Slip Op 01543, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/OPEN MEETINGS LAW (NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS)

/ ,

MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY A CUSTODY AWARD; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MOTHER’S VISITATION; ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR THE CHILDREN.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was entitled to a hearing on her pro se petition to modify the award of custody to father. The Third Department also noted that the court should not have delegated to father complete authority to control visitation with mother, and the court should have appointed an attorney for the children. With respect to the need for a custody-modification hearing and the visitation issue, the Third Department wrote:

As the party seeking to modify an existing custodial arrangement, the mother was required to demonstrate, as a threshold, that “there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the children” … . The mother's petition, filed pro se, “should be construed liberally when considering whether she sufficiently alleged a change in circumstances” …, and she should be accorded “the benefit of every favorable inference” … . “While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing, generally an evidentiary hearing is necessary and should be conducted unless the party seeking the modification fails to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing or no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children's] best interests” … . * * *

With regard to the mother's request for visitation, there is a “presumption that visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the chil[ren]'s best interests” … and, “unless visitation is inimical to the [children's] welfare, Family Court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent” … . The record before us contains virtually no factual background information and, as such, does not disclose whether the denial of all visitation to the mother “was based [up]on compelling reasons” or if “visitation would be detrimental or harmful to the child[ren]'s welfare” … . While we express no opinion on the propriety of such visitation, we also note that the court should not have delegated to the father complete authority to determine whether there should be any visitation between the mother and children and under what conditions such contact should occur and, upon remittal, there must be a determination in this regard … . Matter of Harrell v Fox, 2016 NY Slip Op 01534, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY)/FAMILY LAW (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER VISITATION WITH MOTHER)/FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR CHILDREN IN MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING)/CUSTODY (MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY)/VISITATION (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER VISITATION WITH MOTHER)

/ , ,

POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.

The First Department, as a matter of first impression, determined the police department (NYPD) could refuse to hire petitioner as a civilian police communication technician (PCT) solely because petitioner had a criminal record, without regard to the criteria set out in Corrections Law article 23-a. The Corrections Law, in an effort to support the hiring of persons with a criminal record, generally requires employers to determine whether an applicant’s criminal record has a direct relationship with the responsibilities of the job and/or whether employment of the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to the public.  The First Department concluded the Corrections Law excluded law enforcement from the reach of its hiring criteria:

Article 23-A broadly provides that employers, whether public or private, are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless after consideration of certain enumerated statutory factors, the employer determines that there is direct relationship between the offense(s) and the duties or responsibilities inherent in the license or employment sought or held by the individual, or such employment or license poses an unreasonable risk to the public, etc. (Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The statute defines the term “employment” as follows: “(5) Employment’ means any occupation, vocation or employment, or any form of vocational or educational training. Provided, however, that “employment” shall not, for the purposes of this article, include membership in any law enforcement agency” (Correction Law § 750[5] emphasis added). Matter of Belgrave v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01548, 1st Dept 3-3-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/CORRECTIONS LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)

/

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT ADDRESS PETITIONER’S MENTAL HEALTH STATUS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the hearing officer made no effort to ascertain the testimony of a mental health clinician or therapist (outside the presence of petitioner) after the therapist called by the petitioner refused to testify:

 

…[P]etitioner’s mental health status was at issue and the Hearing Officer erred in not taking testimony from Office of Mental Health (hereinafter OMH) personnel regarding petitioner’s mental condition (see 7 NYCRR 254.6 [c]). Although a therapist from OMH that petitioner had requested refused to testify, the Hearing Officer was obligated to interview, out of petitioner’s presence, an OMH clinician “as may be available” concerning petitioner’s mental condition (7 NYCRR 254.6 [c] [3]…). Here, the Hearing Officer made no effort to ascertain the testimony of the therapist, or any other clinician at OMH, outside the presence of petitioner. Under the circumstances presented herein, the proper remedy for the Hearing Officer’s failure to satisfy his obligations under 7 NYCRR 254.6 (b) is a new hearing to address petitioner’s mental health status… . Matter of Howard v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01538, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S DEFENSE, DETERMINATION EXPUNGED)

/

DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO CORRECTIONAL-STAFF WITNESSES WAS ERROR, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the hearing officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call two witness who on the staff of the correctional facility and were trained in the identification of gang-related materials. Petitioner was charged possession of gang-related materials (photographs):

… [T]he Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call two witnesses, who were correctional facility staff trained at identifying gang-related materials, to support his claim that the pictures did not depict any gang-related signs. As petitioner sought such testimony in order to refute a correction officer’s testimony that the gestures in the pictures depict gang signs, the Hearing Officer erred in finding that such testimony would be redundant. Given that the Hearing Officer put forth a good faith reason for the denial, this violated petitioner’s regulatory right to call witnesses and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing … . Matter of Williams v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 01535, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR STAFF WITNESSES REQUIRED ANNULMENT)

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