You are here: / THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial dissent, held that the sole remedy provision in the Representations and Warranties Agreement (RWA) in this residential mortgage-backed securities (RBMS) case was valid and enforceable. Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to avoid the sole remedy provision by arguing the defendants breached the contract with gross negligence:

… [W]e … conclude that the parties’ contract, as written, means what it says. In this RMBS put-back action, plaintiff seeks to avoid a provision in the contract … that sets out a sole remedy for a breach by alleging that defendants breached the contract with gross negligence. This sole remedy provision purports to limit, but not eliminate, the remedies available to the plaintiff in the event of a breach. We conclude that, in a breach of contract action, the public policy rule prohibiting parties from insulating themselves from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct applies only to exculpatory clauses or provisions that limit liability to a nominal sum. The rule does not apply to contractual limitations on remedies that do not immunize the breaching party from liability for its conduct. The sole remedy provision is not an exculpatory or nominal damages clause. Plaintiff cannot render it unenforceable through allegations of gross negligence. * * *

We have previously considered the application of the gross negligence public policy rule only in cases where the contract provision at issue was an exculpatory clause, purporting to wholly immunize a party from liability, or a nominal damages clause limiting damages to, at most, $250 … . We have not yet determined whether grossly negligent conduct may render unenforceable contractual provisions that do not wholly insulate a party from liability for its breach, but instead impose reasonable limitations on either liability or the remedies available to the non-breaching party. We conclude that, in a breach of contract case, grossly negligent conduct will render unenforceable only exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, and the public policy rule does not extend to limitations on the remedies available to the non-breaching party. Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 2020 NY Slip Op 07687, CtApp 12-22-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT, WHO ACCEPTED POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FROM HIS FRIEND, DID SO IN ANTICIPATION OF A POSSIBLE CONFRONTATION; DURING THE CONFRONTATION DEFENDANT SHOT TWO PEOPLE; THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE DID NOT RENDER DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two concurring opinions, determined defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on temporary and lawful possession of a firearm. Defendant was leaving a friend’s apartment building when he saw a man, Carson, pull a gun out of his pocket. Defendant and Carson had a history of violent confrontations, including shootings. Defendant went back to his friend’s (Foe’s) apartment. Foe picked up a loaded gun and offered to walk defendant out of the building. When they got to the lobby Foe handed defendant the gun. When defendant saw Carson he believed Carson was about to shoot him and defendant shot Carson and a bystander:

… “[A] defendant may not be guilty of unlawful possession if the jury finds that [the defendant] found the weapon shortly before [the defendant’s] possession of it was discovered and [the defendant] intended to turn it over to the authorities” … . We have also indicated that temporary and lawful possession may result where a defendant “took [the firearm] from an assailant in the course of a fight” … and the circumstances do not otherwise evince an intent to maintain unlawful possession of the weapon . In such scenarios, “[t]he innocent nature of the possession negates . . . the criminal act of possession” … . Ultimately, whether the weapon is found fortuitously or obtained by disarming an attacker, “the underlying purpose of the charge is to foster a civic duty on the part of citizens to surrender dangerous weapons to the police” … . …

… [D]efendant’s possession did not “result temporarily and incidentally from the performance of some lawful act, [such] as disarming a wrongful possessor” or unexpected discovery … . Rather, under the circumstances presented here, defendant’s contention that his possession should be legally excused on the grounds of self-defense amounts to a claim that he was entitled to possess the weapon for his protection. Even crediting defendant’s testimony that he had been confronted by Carson at the building’s exit earlier and that Carson had displayed a firearm at that time, defendant testified that he then safely retreated to Foe’s apartment. There was no evidence suggesting that Carson chased after defendant when he re-entered the building, or that Carson had any awareness of defendant’s location in the building. Further, defendant admitted that he accepted possession of the firearm from Foe in the stairwell, at a time when he was unaware of Carson’s whereabouts and was not facing any imminent threat to his safety. Defendant then chose to retain possession of the firearm and to enter the lobby with the weapon in his hand. Under these circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant armed himself in anticipation of a potential confrontation; however, the law is clear that defendant “may not avoid the criminal [possession] charge by claiming that he possessed the weapon for his protection” … . People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 07664, CtApp 12-17-20

 

/ ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FOUND IN ANOTHER’S HOUSE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE “INVOLUNTARY POSSESSION” JURY INSTRUCTION; POSSESSION, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IS NOT VOLUNTARY IF IT IS FOR SO BRIEF A PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined there was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported a jury instruction on voluntary (involuntary) possession of a weapon. In addition to actual and constructive possession, there is the concept of involuntary possession. Both actual and constructive possession can be involuntary if it is so fleeting that the defendant was not able to terminate possession. Defendant argued he was a guest for the night in the house where the weapon was found and did not possess it all, either actually or constructively. The Court of Appeals noted that “involuntary possession” conflicted with “no possession at all,” but the jury still should have been instructed on involuntary possession because there was evidence to support the instruction:

The distinction among constructive, knowing, and voluntary possession that defendant emphasizes is reflected in the Criminal Jury Instructions’ model charge on voluntary possession, which provides that “[p]ossession . . . is voluntary when the possessor was aware of [their] physical possession or control . . . for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession” (CJI2d [NY] Voluntary Possession § 15.00 [2] … . * * *

… [T]he trial court denied the charge here, not because the requested charge lacked evidentiary support, but because the court considered the proposed language more confusing than helpful. … . This determination was in error because the requested charge did not inject confusion into the instructions. Rather, it addressed an entirely different aspect of the charged possessory crime: the temporal requirement of voluntary possession. Indeed, the requested charge would have clarified the law because the charge, as erroneously given, allowed the jury to conclude that if defendant had control over the area where the gun was found—i.e., the bedroom—then he had constructive possession of the gun, regardless of how long he was actually aware of its presence. This is not an accurate statement of the relevant law where, as here, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the possession may not have been voluntary. People v J.L., 2020 NY Slip Op 07663, CtApp 12-17-20

 

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE PROPER PROTECTIVE DEVICES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED; A STACK OF CONCRETE BOARDS FELL OFF A TRUCK ONTO PLAINTIFF WHEN THE SKIDS UNDER THE BOARDS BROKE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a stack of cement boards fell off a truck onto him after the skids under the concrete boards broke:

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate conclusively that the accident was proximately caused by [defendants’] failure to provide him with proper protective devices for the performance of his work. The load of cement boards atop the pallet jack did not fall because of an inadequacy or deficiency in the pallet jack but, rather, because the wooden skids underneath the load of cement boards broke, causing the load to fall from the pallet jack. Coupled with the dispute as to whether plaintiff was permitted to use the street level hoist for the delivery of cement boards, this evidence renders it impossible to determine as a matter of law that [defendants] failed to supply plaintiff with adequate safety devices for the performance of his work and that this failure was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident … . Valle v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 07685, First Dept 12-17-20

 

/

PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this icy-sidewalk slip and fall case. Defendants’ employees hosed down the sidewalk in front of the restaurant on a cold day. The argument that plaintiff saw the ice and should have taken another route (comparative negligence) did not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor:

To obtain partial summary judgment, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault … . Moreover, plaintiff is not required to show that “defendants’ negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident to be entitled to summary judgment” … . The evidence plaintiff submitted in support of his motion shows that defendants-tenants … created the dangerous condition when their employees hosed the sidewalk on a cold winter day … . Defendants-owners … had a non delegable duty to maintain the sidewalk and had notice that the restaurant employees had created a dangerous condition, because [the] property manager and … superintendent had observed the restaurants’ employees hosing the sidewalk. Benny v Concord Partners 46th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07665, First Dept 12-17-20

 

/ , ,

NYC’S “OPEN SPACE” ZONING REQUIREMENT IS MET BY ROOFTOP GARDENS ON A SINGLE BUILDING IN A MULTI-BUILDING ZONING LOT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division and upholding the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the “open space” requirement of the NYC Zoning Resolution in a zoning lot with multiple buildings was met by rooftop gardens accessible to a single building’s residents:

The question before us is whether an area must be accessible to the residents of every building on a zoning lot containing multiple, separately owned buildings in order to constitute “open space” within the meaning of the New York City Zoning Resolution … . The Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (BSA), which is responsible for administering the Zoning Resolution, has interpreted the definition of open space to encompass rooftop gardens accessible to a single building’s residents as long as the residents of each building on the zoning lot receive at least a proportionate share of open space. …

… “‘Open space’ is that part of a zoning lot, including courts or yards, which is open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky and is accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the zoning lot” … . The minimum amount of open space required on a zoning lot is determined by the “open space ratio,” which is “the number of square feet of open space on the zoning lot, expressed as a percentage of the floor area on that zoning lot” … . … [T]he minimum amount of open space required on a zoning lot is calculated by multiplying the given open space ratio by the total residential floor area on the zoning lot. * * * The Appellate Division … opined that the definition of open space in ZR [Zoning Resolution] § 12-10 unambiguously requires that open space be accessible to the residents of every building on a zoning lot. By contrast, the dissent concluded that the statute was ambiguous and would have deferred to the BSA’s practical reading of the open-space definition as applied to multi-owner zoning lots. * * *The BSA’s interpretation is rational as applied to multi-owner zoning lots. Matter of Peyton v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 07662, CtApp 12-17-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum with an extensive concurring opinion, determined the defendants in the foreclosure action had waived the lack-of-standing defense by not raising it in their answers or pre-answer motions. The court noted that Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1320-a, which was enacted when this appeal was pending, may allow standing to be raised “at this stage of the litigation:”

… Supreme Court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendants failed to raise standing in their answers or in pre-answer motions as required by CPLR 3211 (e) and accordingly, under the law in effect at the time of the orders appealed from, the defense was waived … . Defendants’ argument that ownership is an essential element of a foreclosure action, raised for the first time in support of their motion for reargument at the Appellate Division, is unpreserved for our review. We do not reach the issue of whether RPAPL 1302-a, enacted while this appeal was pending, affords defendants an opportunity to raise standing at this stage of the litigation. Defendants are free to apply to the trial court for any relief that may be available to them under that statute. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Caliguri, 2020 NY Slip Op 07660, CtApp 12-17-20

 

/

UBER DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that Uber drivers are employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Uber controls the drivers’ access to their customers, calculates and collects the fares and sets the drivers’ rate of compensation. Drivers may choose the route to take in transporting customers, but Uber provides a navigation system, tracks the drivers’ location on the app throughout the trip and reserves the right to adjust the fare if the drivers take an inefficient route. Uber also controls the vehicle used, precludes certain driver behavior and uses its rating system to encourage and promote drivers to conduct themselves in a way that maintains “a positive environment” and “a fun atmosphere in the car.” Considering the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding of an employment relationship … . Matter of Lowry (Uber Tech., Inc–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 07645, Third Dept 12-17-20

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH FACILITATES DELIVERIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a logistics company (US Pack) which facilitates deliveries and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record reflects that claimant was assigned specific workdays and hours by US Pack’s operations manager and was issued an identification badge bearing US Pack’s name. Claimant was required to sit in the client’s parking lot during set hours — for which he was paid a set fee — and wait for US Pack to contact him with assignments. The client would notify US Pack about assignments, which, in turn, would call claimant to retrieve the assignments. Claimant was required to call dispatch at US Pack once the assignments were loaded into his car. Once a delivery was completed, claimant was required to call dispatch again, providing the name of the person who accepted the delivery and the time delivery was complete, before moving onto the next delivery. Although claimant could refuse an assignment, he testified that when he did, he was told he could be fired, and the following day was punished by being passed over for assignments. Some compensation was negotiated, although claimant testified that US Pack set the compensation of some of the deliveries.

Although the record establishes that claimant used his own vehicle and was not reimbursed any expenses, the record nevertheless supports the Board’s conclusion that US Pack exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over significant aspects of claimant’s work to establish an employer-employee relationship … . Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 07642, Third Dept 12-17-20

 

/

DAMAGE TO A LEG MUSCLE, HERE THE HAMSTRING, SUPPORTED A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined damage to a muscle, here the hamstring, qualified for a schedule loss of use (SLU):

The Board’s conclusion that no SLU award can be made because “no special consideration applies to a hamstring tear” fails to take into consideration that the 2018 guidelines specifically permit an SLU award to be based upon a permanent residual deficit caused by physical damage to a muscle, such as a hamstring. We recognize that the 2018 guidelines provide “useful criteria” and the Board makes the ultimate determination of a claimant’s degree of disability, but that determination must be supported by substantial evidence … . In finding that claimant]was not entitled to an SLU award, the Board did not discredit or find unpersuasive the medical opinion of either of the orthopedists, reject Rashid’s [the orthopedist’s] opinion that this hamstring tear injury most closely correlated to a quadricep rupture or find that the orthopedists’ SLU calculations were inadequately supported; rather, the Board found that, even if credited, the medical opinions could not support an SLU award here … . …

… [W]e find, contrary to the Board’s interpretation, that, in the absence of specific instructions regarding hamstring tears in the 2018 guidelines, a medical expert could rationally rely upon the special consideration for quadricep ruptures as the closest corollary to claimant’s injury and impairment. The absence  a special consideration addressing a hamstring impairment did not preclude an SLU award for a leg impairment … . Matter of Semrau v Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07650, Third Dept 12-17-20

 

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