You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT IS NOT IN THE MILITARY IS A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNLESS THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATES HE OR SHE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MILITARY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined: (1) although the default judgement in this breach of contract action was improperly entered because a so-called “non-military affidavit” demonstrating defendant was not in the military was not submitted by the plaintiff, the absence of a “non-military affidavit” does not warrant vacatur of the default judgment unless the defendant demonstrates he or she was, in fact, in the military (not the case here); and (2) because the damages in this breach of contract action were estimated and were not for a “sum certain,” an inquest is required. Here plaintiff hired defendant to do concrete work for a construction project. The complaint alleged the work was not completed and sought estimated damages over $900,000:

It is clear that a non-military affidavit is counted amongst the proof required for a movant to meet its burden on a motion for leave to enter a default judgment. A movant’s failure to provide a non-military affidavit is sufficient to warrant denial of such a motion in the first instance … . * * *

It … that the [New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act] carves out a remedy for vacatur of default judgments … . However, this remedy is limited to applications made “by or on behalf of the servicemember” and “for the purpose of allowing the servicemember to defend the action” under certain circumstances. The statutory text does not support the defendants’ assertion that any person may seek to vacate a default judgment based on a failure to comply with the Act. Therefore, we hold that a movant’s failure to provide a non-military affidavit does not entitle a defendant to vacatur of an otherwise validly entered default judgment as of right. Where, as here, the defaulting party has made no assertion of being on active military duty at the time of his or her default, he or she falls outside of the protection afforded by the Act. * * *

“Where the damages sought are for a ‘sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain,'” CPLR 3215(a) permits the clerk, upon proper proof, to enter judgment up to the amount demanded in the complaint, without notice to the defendant … . Otherwise, an application to the court pursuant to CPLR 3215 is required and an inquest is appropriate to assess damages … . Where damages cannot be determined without extrinsic proof, an inquest is required … . Tri-Rail Designers & Bldrs., Inc. v Concrete Superstructures, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: The New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act requires a plaintiff seeking a default judgment to submit a “non-military affidavit” demonstrating defendant is not in the military. Consult this decision for instruction on how to do that. Failure to submit a “non-military affidavit” is a valid ground for denial of a motion for a default judgment but, it is not enough to warrant vacatur of a default judgment. Defendant must prove he or she was, in fact, in the military to warrant vacatur on this ground.

Practice Point: If damages are not based on a “sum certain,” where plaintiff seeks a default judgment, an inquest to determine damages is required.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, I.E., THE DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF EMAILS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, i.e., the failure to preserve relevant emails. The plaintiffs alleged defendants performed faulty renovation-work and thereby breached the renovation contract:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . “The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” … . “A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . “‘A culpable state of mind for [the] purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence'” … . Further, “[s]triking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct and, in order to impose such a sanction, the court ‘will consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . “In contrast, where the moving party has not been deprived of the ability to establish his or her case or defense, a less severe sanction is appropriate” … . “[A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed” … .

… [P]laintiffs demonstrated that the defendants were on notice that they had an obligation to preserve their email accounts and emails prior to the time that they were lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the emails were lost or destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that the emails were sufficiently relevant to the litigation … . Nonetheless, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the drastic remedy of striking the defendants’ answer was not warranted … . Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer to the extent of directing that an adverse inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the loss or destruction of their email accounts and emails … . Dorman v Luva of NY, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the criteria for finding spoliation of evidence and the appropriate sanctions. In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs demonstrated defendants destroyed or lost relevant emails with a “culpable state of mind.”

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined plaintiff’s salary, paid to hm as the sole shareholder in a professional service corporation, was not a corporate expense and therefore could be recoverable as damages for lost profits in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff, a radiation oncologist, successfully sued the hospital for breach of contract after the hospital terminated him. The instant dispute is about the available damages. In addition to ruling plaintiff could recover his lost salary from his professional service corporation as damages, the Third Department held defendant could present proof plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding employment, through another professional service corporation, with another hospital. The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings:

Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting causes of action for, among others, breach of contract, wrongful termination, libel and slander. Following the completion of disclosure and motion practice, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the four remaining causes of action for breach of contract. A jury trial on damages was scheduled, and the parties filed respective motions in limine disputing the method of calculating damages and whether evidence of ]plaintiffs’] duty to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury. Such dispute essentially distills to whether the salary paid by a professional service corporation to its sole shareholder must be treated as an expense in calculating the lost profits, thus subtracting it from the corporation’s profits and correspondingly reducing its damages. Supreme Court, in a pair of well-reasoned decisions, determined that [plaintiff’s] salary as paid by [plaintiff professional service corporation] under the coverage agreement is not an expense and could be recoverable as damages for lost profits. Supreme Court further found that evidence of [plaintiffs’] efforts to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury, and whether or not [plaintiff’s] postbreach earnings are income derived because of defendant’s breach is a question to be resolved by the jury in determining damages. Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N.Y., P.C. v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06112, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here, in a matter of first impression, the Third Department ruled that plaintiff oncologist, whose salary was paid by plaintiff professional service corporation in which plaintiff oncologist was the sole shareholder, could, in a breach of contract action, recover his lost salary as lost profits. In other words, in this situation, plaintiff’s salary was not considered to be a corporate expense which must be deducted from lost profits when calculating damages for breach of contract.

 

, , ,

IN THIS EJECTMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT-TENANT’S “FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,” “WAIVER,” “CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION,” “BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT,” “IMPROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT,” AND “TRESPASS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined several affirmative defenses in this ejectment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff landlord sought to eject defendant tenant from a parking lot for nonpayment of rent. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff acknowledged, plaintiff had rented certain parking spaces to a third party. The Second Department held: (1) no motion lies to dismiss a “failure to state a cause of action” defense because plaintiff cannot test the sufficiency of its own claim; (2) the “waiver” defense should not have been dismissed despite the “nonwaiver” provision in the lease; (3) the constructive eviction and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment defenses were supported by plaintiff’s renting spaces to a third party; (4) the ‘improper notice of default” defense was supported by the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice called for by the lease; and (5) the “trespass” defense was supported by the rental of spaces to a third party:

CPLR 3211(b) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit.” “When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses ‘are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of [the] case, or fail to state a defense'” … . “‘On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true'” … . “‘Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed'” … . Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v Nader Enters., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06047, Second Dept 11-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for dismissal of an affirmative defense and the elements of “waiver,” “constructive eviction,” “breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment,” “Improper notice of default,” and “trespass” affirmative defenses as alleged by defendant-tenant in this ejectment action brough by plaintiff-landlord.

 

, ,

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to “pierce the corporate veil” should not have been granted: The allegations in the proposed amended complaint were “conclusory” rather than fact-based:

“‘Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, “pierce the corporate veil,” whenever necessary “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity”‘” … . “‘Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury'” … . The mere contention that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory assertions that a corporation acted as the owners’ “alter ego,” without more, will not suffice to support the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has ‘abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form’ include whether there was a ‘failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use'” … . Moreover, even under the liberal standards of CPLR 3025(b), the proposed amended complaint must still sufficiently allege the material elements of the cause of action asserted … .

Here, the proposed amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations that the Berkovics [the principals of defendant corporation] breached a settlement agreement, thereby acting in bad faith and in furtherance of their own interests, and that the Berkovics exercised complete domination over the defendant in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. The proposed amended complaint fails to assert that the Berkovics acted other than in their alleged capacity as the principals of the defendant or that they failed to respect the separate legal existence of the defendant. Thus, the proposed cause of action seeking to pierce the corporate veil was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit as it was speculative and conclusory … . Anderson v ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05931, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight in the the nature of the allegations required to “pierce to corporate” veil. The allegations must be fact-based. Conclusory or speculative allegations will not suffice.

 

, ,

THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the terms of the surety bond governed whether the surety was obligated to pay prejudgment interest. Because the bond, a contract, did not mention prejudgment interest, the surety was not obligated to pay it. The argument that CPLR 5001 makes an award of prejudgment interest mandatory, regardless of the language of the surety bond, was rejected:

Here, the contract states that the surety will “pay for labor, materials, and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the [c]onstruction [c]ontract”; importantly to this case, there is no commitment to remit — or even mention of — prejudgment interest. “Surety bonds — like all contracts — are to be construed in accordance with their terms under established rules of contract construction. . . . [A] surety’s obligation upon its undertaking is defined solely by the language of the bond and cannot be extended by the court” … . In the matter before us, the damage claimed by plaintiff is the amount of prejudgment interest it did not receive in the judgment against the surety. However, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the payment bond, the surety had no obligation to remit same. Stone Cast, Inc. v Couch, Dale Marshall P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05860, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: CPLR 5001 does not make payment of prejudgment interest mandatory in breach of contract cases. The language of the surety bond, a contract, controls.​

 

, ,

THE GUARANTY OF RENT DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WAS A “GOOD GUY” GUARANTY; THE GUARANTOR’S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE LANDLORD ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined Mr. Lieberman’s guaranty of the rent due under the commercial lease terminated when the tenant vacated the premises, not when the landlord subsequently accepted the surrender of the premises. The opinion turns on interpreting the language of the guaranty and the lease:

In the world of commercial leases, a “good guy” guaranty is a limited guaranty in which the guarantor’s obligation extends only up to the point that the tenant surrenders the premises to the landlord, leaving the tenant solely responsible for rent due from that point forward … . The question in this case is whether the guaranty at issue operates in that manner. The guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated the premises and, under the terms of the guaranty in this agreement, was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of that surrender. Accordingly, we reverse. * * *

It would be a simple matter for parties intending to enter into a “good guy” guaranty to say so explicitly, with clear language that does not require courts to resort to rules of construction regarding superfluity or canons that aid in determining the parties’ intent. Here, although the parties could have expressed their intent in a much simpler and clearer way and avoided this litigation entirely, we conclude that the guaranty in this case is limited, confining the guarantor’s liability to damages accruing prior to the date the tenant surrendered possession of the Premises. Under the terms of the guaranty, WSA [the tenant] surrendered possession of the Premises on or about November 30, 2020 when it provided 1995 CAM [the landlord] notice, completely vacated the Premises, and relinquished control of the Premises. 1995 CAM LLC v West Side Advisors, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05782, CtApp 10-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an analysis of a “good guy” guaranty of rent due under a commercial lease.

 

, ,

BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RULED THAT UNCLAIMED SETTLEMENT FUNDS CAN BE REDISTRIBUTED TO THE OTHER CLASS MEMBERS, REJECTING DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT ANY UNCLAIMED FUNDS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THEM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined Supreme Court properly ruled that unclaimed checks payable to class members as part of a class action settlement can be redistributed to the other class members. The ruling was based upon an interpretation of the settlement agreement which did not specifically address the “unclaimed checks” issue. Defendants argued the unclaimed funds should be returned to them. The opinion is too fact-specific and detailed to fairly summarize here. O’Brien v Sagbolt LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05280, Third Dept 10-2-25

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease was entered into by the limited liability company (LLC), the owners of the LLC signed as personal guarantors of the rent payments. Therefore the breach of contract action against the individual owners should not have been dismissed:

“An agent executing a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal ‘is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally'” … . “[T]here [must be] clear and explicit evidence of the agent’s intention to substitute or superadd his [or her] personal liability for, or to, that of his [or her] principal” … . “There is great danger in allowing a single sentence in a long contract to bind individually a person who signs only as a corporate officer” … . A personal guaranty of a corporation’s obligation will be enforced against an individual where it “‘constitute[s] a deliberately stated, unambiguous, and separate expression personally obligating'” the individual under the contract … . * * *

Directly above the … signature lines was a paragraph stating that the parties agreed “[t]hat Roman and Solomon Davydov, are the owners of Tavak LLC, and they will act as personal guarantors for the payment of rent and any other[ ] costs, bills and fees and issues arising from the above enumerated items.” …

The clearly worded language of the guaranty clause made reference to Tavak and to each of the individual defendants by name, was contained in a short, two-page rider, and appeared directly above the rider’s signature lines, which the individual defendants signed without listing their corporate titles. 166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v Tavak, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05054, Second Dept 9-24-25

Practice Point: The owners of a limited liability company which enters a lease can agree to be personally liable for the debts of the LLC by guaranteeing the payment of rent.​

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CERTIFIED PLAINTIFFS AS A CLASS BASED ON THE FIVE MANDATORY FACTORS IN CPLR SECTIONS 901 AND 902; THE CLASS DEFINITION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN IMPERMISSIBLE “FAIL SAFE” CLASS UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined Supreme Court properly certified plaintiffs as a class in this wage dispute. Plaintiffs, who acted as “flaggers” at defendants’ construction sites, argued they were wrongly classified as “crossing guards” or “traffic control” and paid at a rate lower than the prevailing wage. The opinion rejected the argument that the class definition constituted an impermissible “fail safe” class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

CPLR 901(a) sets forth five factors required to obtain class certification, which are commonly referred to as, “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . A class action can be maintained pursuant to CPLR 902 only if the five prerequisite factors stated in CPLR 901(a) are met … . * * *

Defendants assert that the class definition constitutes an impermissible “fail safe” class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Rule 23(b). A “fail safe” class exists “when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the defendant is established” … . A “fail safe” class is impermissible because it prevents an adverse judgment being entered against plaintiffs … . Defendants argue that the sole issue in the case is whether or not a particular member was in fact acting as a “flagger” and thus that class membership and liability are inextricably intertwined. …

Supreme Court’s decision amended the definition of the class to avoid an impermissible “fail safe” class under FRCP 23 (b), by excluding reference to “whether public works contracts required the payment of prevailing wages on subject projects” as applying to the ultimate issue of liability. Supreme Court amended the definition of the class to state, “All persons employed by Out-Look Safety LLC at any time since April 16, 2018 through January 28, 2024, who worked as non-union construction flaggers on Restani, Safeway, Triumph, and/or Hawkeye projects requiring the payment of prevailing wages in New York City.” McMillian v Out-Look Safety LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04963, First Dept 9-11-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the proof required to meet the five factors for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902, as well the nature of an impermissible “fail safe” class definition. “A ‘fail safe’ class exists ‘when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the defendant is established’ …”.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy