You are here: / Writing Which Omitted Certain Crucial Terms Was an “Agreement to...

Search Results

/ , , ,

Writing Which Omitted Certain Crucial Terms Was an “Agreement to Agree,” Not an Enforceable Real Estate Sales Contract

The First Department determined that a writing [the September 14 letter] which included some terms of the sale of church property for $15 million constituted an “agreement to agree” and not an enforceable real estate sales contract.  The writing identified the parties, the property, the amount of the downpayment and the price of the property.  At some point after the writing was signed, the defendant property owner told the plaintiff it was negotiating the sale of the property to another and, if the plaintiff wanted to buy, the price would be $17.5 million.  The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract and specific performance.  In finding the writing was not an enforceable real estate sales contract, the court noted that several crucial terms were missing, including the failure to mention the required court-approval of the sale of church property pursuant to the not-for-profit corporation law, and the failure to include details of the escrow agreement:

…[W]e agree with defendant that the September 14 letter did not contain all of the material terms which one would reasonably have expected to be included under the circumstances, rendering the September 14 letter unenforceable. For example, while the September 14 letter contemplated that the down payment would be held in escrow, it failed to identify who the escrow agent would be and left to future negotiations “a reasonably acceptable escrow agreement.” Since “[n];o contract for the sale of real property can be created when a material element of the contemplated bargain has been left for further negotiations,” …, and the details of an escrow arrangement are certainly material, this alone warranted the motion court’s conclusion that the letter was not a contract.

Further, the contemplated transaction was unique, insofar as it was contingent on approval by the court and the Attorney General. While we do not question that defendant was entitled to agree to a sale of the property prior to seeking such approval …, one would expect that an agreement would have contained such material terms as defendant’s duty to seek approval in a diligent manner, and the consequences of a failure to secure such approval. Indeed, it has been held that the contingency created by a condominium association’s right of first refusal is material to an agreement to sell an individual condominium apartment … .  Argent Acquisitions LLC v First Church of Religious Science, 2014 NY Slip Op 04048, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

/

Courts Will Not Intercede to Resolve a Dispute Between Two Wrongdoers—“In Pari Delicto”

The Second Department explained the doctrine of in pari delicto, where a court will not resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers:

“The doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers. The doctrine survives because it serves important public policy purposes. First, denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer deters illegality. Second, in pari delicto avoids entangling courts in disputes between wrongdoers” … . The evidence established that the plaintiff knew that the defendants were offering to sell what amounted to a franchise as defined by General Business Law § 681(3), to multiple persons at the same time that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into their agreement, and that the plaintiff was both aware of and complicit in the defendants’ violation of the Franchise Sales Act. Under the circumstances, the court properly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, “not to favor [the]; defendant, but as a matter of public policy” … . Burgers Bar Five Towns LLC v Burger Holdings Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 03870, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Criteria for Setting Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Explained

In finding plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement was properly denied, the Second Department explained the operative principles:

“Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside, and are to be enforced with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance’ as long as they are clear, final and the product of mutual accord'” … . A stipulation of settlement may not be set aside except on a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident … . Yan Ping Liang v Wei Xuan Gao, 2014 NY Slip Op 04003, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Jury Instructions Which Lumped Counts Together and Did Not Give the Jury the Information Necessary to Distinguish One Count from Another Mandated a New Trial

The Second Department determined a new trial was required because the jury instructions were defective.  The court lumped counts charging the same crime together when explaining the elements, but did not give the jury any indication how the counts differed from one another.  The jury was given no indication which counts implicated defendant as an accessory and which counts implicated defendant as a principal:

We agree with the defendant that the charge, as given, suggested that if the jury found the defendant guilty of any one of the subject counts, it should find him guilty of all three counts. Furthermore, because the court’s charge failed to define the counts in a way that would distinguish them from one another, the jury could not have known which count was based on a finding that the defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant and which count was based on accessorial liability and a finding that the codefendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant. Contrary to the People’s contention, parenthetical notations on the verdict sheet cannot supplant a court’s duty to charge the jury as required by CPL 300.10(4). Since it is not possible to determine whether the jury here actually found that the defendant had himself engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant or that he had acted as an accessory to the codefendant’s sexual intercourse with the complainant, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on those charges … . People v Jadharry, 2014 NY Slip Op 04028, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained

In finding the moving party, Schwartz, had not complied with the relevant statutes conceerning a discretionary venue change, the Second Department explained some of the mechanics of a motion to change venue:

That branch of Schwartz’s motion which was to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Richmond County. A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county (see CPLR 2212[a]…). Schwartz was therefore required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) in Nassau County, where the action was pending, in another county in the 10th Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Nassau County … . Since Nassau County and Richmond County are not contiguous, and Richmond County is not in the 10th Judicial District, the Supreme Court, Richmond County, erred in granting that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(3)

Furthermore, that branch of Schwartz’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue based on an allegedly improper county was untimely made, as it was not served within 15 days after service of his demand for a change of venue (see CPLR 511[b]…). In addition, in response to Schwartz’s demand for a change of venue, the appellant served a timely affirmation with supporting proof that was, prima facie, sufficient to support its choice of venue as of right in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (see CPLR 503[c]; 511[b]; 2103[b];[2]; 2106…). Accordingly, that branch of Schwartz’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(1) also should have been made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, where the action was pending, and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, erred in granting that branch of the motion as well… . Schwartz v Yellowbook Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04000, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply

The Second Department explained when the court may consider evidence submitted for the first time in a surreply:

While it is true that unauthorized surreplies containing new arguments generally should not be considered by the court … , the procedural history in this case is analogous to circumstances in which arguments are raised for the first time in reply. Arguments raised for the first time in reply may be considered if the original movant is given the opportunity to respond and submits papers in surreply… . Here, while the motion was fully briefed by its return date, the court granted the defendants’ application for an adjournment to February 8, 2013, in order to respond to the plaintiff’s reply. The defendants submitted the surreply containing the Nolie affidavit dated January 28, 2013, and the plaintiff responded to it on February 7, 2013. In addition, oral argument was held on February 8, 2013. Consequently, the plaintiff had adequate opportunity to address the new arguments raised in the defendants’ surreply, and the Supreme Court properly considered it. Gluck v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 03977, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Motion to Compel Discovery in Class Action Suit Erroneously Denied—“Full Disclosure” Criteria Explained

The First Department determined the motion court erred when it denied plaintiffs-intervenors' motion to compel the defendants to disclose documents in a class action suit.  The suit was brought on behalf of children with developmental disabilities against the NYC Administration for Children's Services and the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities.  Any privacy-related issues could be handled by redaction:

Under CPLR 3101(a), “full disclosure” is required for “all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has held that “material and necessary” is “to be interpreted liberally,” and that the test of whether matter should be disclosed is “one of usefulness and reason” … . City of New York  Maul, 2014 NY Slip Op 03941, 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

/ , ,

In this Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Causes of Action Not Subject to the “Internal Affairs” Doctrine Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department determined many of the causes of action in this shareholder derivative suit were not governed by Bermuda law under the “internal affairs” doctrine and, therefore, should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiffs — minority shareholders of Culligan Ltd. — bring this derivative action on behalf of that entity, a Bermuda company that does business in New York. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss upon finding that Bermuda law applied to the case pursuant to the “internal affairs” doctrine. That doctrine “recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders”  Since the internal affairs doctrine does not apply to those defendants who are not current officers, directors, and shareholders of Culligan Ltd. … Bermuda law does not apply to claims asserted against them.

Nor does the internal affairs doctrine apply to claims based on sections of the Business Corporation Law (BCL) enumerated in BCL §§ 1317 and 1319. BCL § 1319(a)(1) expressly provides that BCL § 626 (shareholders’ derivative action) shall apply to a foreign corporation doing business in New York. Thus, the issue of plaintiffs’ standing to bring a shareholder derivative action is governed by New York law, not Bermuda law … . …

Pursuant to German-American Coffee Co. v Diehl (216 NY 57, 62-64 [1915]) and BCL §§ 1319(a)(1), 719(a)(1), and 510, New York law applies to the second cause of action, which alleges that the directors of Culligan Ltd. declared illegal dividends.

To the extent plaintiffs allege violations of BCL § 720 (e.g. waste and unlawful conveyance), which is made applicable to foreign corporations doing business in New York by BCL § 1317(a)(2), those claims are also governed by New York law … . However, to the extent plaintiffs allege a violation of a section of the Business Corporation Law not enumerated in BCL § 1317 (e.g. § 717, which is part of plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim), New York law does not apply … . Those claims are governed by Bermuda law …, and were thus correctly dismissed. Culligan Soft Water Co v Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03955, 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract

The First Department determined there a question of fact about defendant’s negligence and the related applicability of the doctrine of mutual mistake. The parties orally agreed to share funeral expenses and commence a lost will proceeding based upon the understanding that the original will could not be found.  However, the original will was subsequently found.  The defendant moved to rescind the contract on the basis of mutual mistake and Supreme Court granted the motion.  In reversing, the First Department noted the doctrine of mutual mistake would not be available if defendant were negligent in initially failing to find the will, and a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s negligence in that regard:

Plaintiff met her obligations under the agreement to pay one half of the decedent’s funeral expenses and attorneys fees for the proceeding. Defendant did, as required, commence a lost will proceeding. Both parties thus fulfilled the terms of the oral agreement. It was only less than one month before the hearing on the lost will proceeding was to commence that defendant’s husband found the original will in the same box which defendant had searched prior to entering into the agreement. It was at that point that defendant attempted to abrogate the contract. It is noteworthy that defendant, in her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint argued that the contract should be rescinded due to a mutual mistake as to the existence of the original will. The question of mutual mistake, therefore, is central to the disposition of this case.

Defendant’s alleged negligence in searching for the original 1991 will, the absence of which formed the basis of the oral agreement to commence a lost will proceeding, is an important factor in determining whether the doctrine of mutual mistake may be invoked to rescind this otherwise valid oral agreement. ” Mistake, to be available in equity, must not have arisen from negligence, where the means of knowledge were easily accessible.'” … . The doctrine of mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . Gitelson v Quinn, 2014 NY Slip Op 03942, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

/ , ,

State and City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims Were Not Precluded by Dismissal of Federal Retaliation Claims Pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act—Different Protected Activities Involved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined plaintiff’s state and city human rights law retaliation claims against her employer were not precluded by the dismissal of her federal action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue clearly raised and decided against that party in a prior action … . To successfully invoke this doctrine, two requirements must be met. First, the issue in the second action must be identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action. Second, the party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action … . Where a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims, collateral estoppel can still bar those claims provided that the federal court decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff’s state claims … . The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing identity of issue … . Applying these principles, we conclude that defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s state and city claims of retaliatory termination are barred by collateral estoppel. The retaliation claims asserted here are entirely distinct from those raised and decided in the federal action. There, the court only decided whether plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising her FMLA rights. Here, however, plaintiff does not claim retaliation based on her exercise of FMLA rights, but instead alleges retaliation, under the State and City Human Rights Laws, based on entirely different instances of protected activity. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was discharged for filing a written complaint about her reprimand for allegedly reading a book during work hours, and for verbally complaining about an alleged inappropriate comment. Because the federal court’s decision did not address either of these claimed bases for retaliation, it cannot be said that the federal action “necessarily decided” the same issues raised by the State and City retaliation claims, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply… .  Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 03961, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

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