You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30(2)(A), THE 90-DAY SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK DOES NOT COUNT DAYS WHEN DEFENDANT IS NOT IN CUSTODY; HERE DEFENDANT WAS INITIALLY INCARCERATED, RELASED ON BAIL, AND THEN INCARCERATED AGAIN; THE DAYS DURING WHICH DEFENDANT WAS OUT ON BAIL ARE NOT PART OF THE 90-DAY CALCULATION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, in a matter of first impression, determined the 90-day clock for a speedy trial violation pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) includes only the days during which defendant was incarcerated. Here defendant was initially incarcerated, then released on bail when his girlfriend posted bail, and then incarcerated again when his girlfriend withdrew as the surety. Defendant’s total number of incarcerated days before the People were ready for trial was 80 days:

Counsel for the defendant contended, among other things, that the 31 days between September 9, 2024, and October 11, 2024, when the defendant was no longer in custody as he had posted bail did not qualify under CPL 30.30(3) or (4) as an exception to the 90-day readiness requirement and that, therefore, 117 days were chargeable to the People for the purposes of CPL 30.30(2)(a). According to counsel, since the People were not ready for trial within 90 days after the defendant was first in custody, the defendant was entitled to be released under CPL 30.30(2)(a). Counsel argued that there was no statutory basis for two different CPL 30.30 clocks or for resetting the clock to exclude the 31 days when he was out on bail.

In opposition, the People contended that the 31 days when the defendant was out on bail should be excluded from the calculation of time under CPL 30.30(2)(a). They contended, in sum and substance, that, upon the defendant’s return to custody in this case, the 90-day time clock under CPL 30.30(2)(a) for the People to be ready for trial reset and began again. The People argued, in the alternative, that the 31 days that the defendant was out on bail should be excluded from the 90-day calculation of readiness under CPL 30.30(2)(a). Thus, they contended that the time chargeable to the People was 80 days, plus 4 days that the Supreme Court charged to the People with respect to a challenge the defendant had made to the validity of the People’s COC, but that, since only 84 days were chargeable under CPL 30.30(2)(a), the People had declared their readiness for trial within the statute’s permissible time frame. * * *

Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant was not unlawfully detained in violation of CPL 30.30(2)(a). Under the appropriate calculation, here, 20 days was chargeable to the People before the defendant was released on bail from his original custody. Thereafter, an additional 60 days were chargeable to the People for the time period preceding the People’s filing of the COC and the SOR, during which the defendant was again incarcerated. Thus, for the purposes of CPL 30.30(2)(a), 80 days were chargeable to the People under CPL 30.30(2). People ex rel. Liles v Richards, 2026 NY Slip Op 05191, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Pursuant to CPL 30.30(a)(2), the 90-day speedy trial clock does not include days when defendant is not in custody. Here defendant was initially incarcerated, released on bail, then incarcerated again. Because the days when defendant was out on bail are not part of the calculation, the speedy trial statute was not violated.

 

,

PLAINTIFF-TEACHER WAS STRUCK IN THE BACK BY A BASKETBALL THAT BOUNCED OFF THE RIM DURING A RECESS-PERIOD BASKETBALL GAME; PLAINTIFF SUED THE COMPANY WHICH CONTRACTED WITH THE SCHOOL TO PROVIDE A BASKETBALL COACH FOR RECESS GAMES; NO “ESPINAL”EXCEPTIONS APPLIED SO PLAIINTIFF, AS A NON-PARTY, COULD NOT SUE UNDER THE CONTRACT; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF, BY STANDING 10 TO 12 FEET FROM THE BASKETBALL COURT, ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASKETBALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-teacher’s action against the company hired by the school (Asphalt Green) to provide a basketball coach for school recess-periods should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was standing 10 to 12 feet from the basketball court when a basketball bounced off the rim and struck her in the back. Plaintiff was not a party to the contract between the school and Asphalt Green and none of the Espinal exceptions applied. In addition, plaintiff assumed the risk of being struck by a basketball:

A contracting party can assume a duty of care toward a third party where: 1) “the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm”; 2) “the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties”; or 3) “the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]). However, none of these exceptions apply to this case.

The facts do not establish that defendants launched an instrument of harm. * * * A missed basketball shot that bounces off the rim isa frequent occurrence in basketball games. * * * There is no claim that this was anything other than a normal basketball game being played during recess. * * *

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, “one is deemed to have assumed, as a voluntary participant, spectator, or even bystander certain risks occasioned by athletic or recreational activity, and to the extent of such an assumption, any legally enforceable duty to reduce the risks of such activity is limited” … . Carrero-Santiago v Asphalt Green, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 8-27-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff-teacher was not a party to the contract between the school and the company which provided a recess basketball coach. Because no “Espinal” exceptions applied, plaintiff, who was struck by an errant basketball while supervising recess, could not sue under the contract.

Practice Point: Plaintiff-teacher, who was standing 10 to 12 feet from the basketball court while supervising recess, assumed the risk of being struck by a basketball.

 

, ,

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE “LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS” ELEMENT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED BY ALLEGATIONS MADE BASED ON “INFORMATION AND BELIEF;” AND THE “IRREPARABLE HARM” ELEMENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE INJURY COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY MONEY DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the criteria for a preliminary injunction were not met. The “likelihood of success” element was not demonstrated by allegations based upon “information and belief.” In addition plaintiff did not demonstrate the “irreparable harm” element because plaintiff failed to explain why money damages would not adequately compensate for the injury:

In an affidavit in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff’s statements … were made only upon “information and belief,” and the plaintiff submitted no evidence … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish irreparable harm. To establish irreparable harm, the plaintiff must demonstrate an injury for which money damages are insufficient … . Here, the plaintiff attested in his affidavit that, if the defendant were permitted to enforce the agreement, the defendant would be entitled to 100% of the plaintiff’s business’s revenue and the business would inevitably cease operation. The plaintiff … failed to demonstrate that this injury could not be adequately compensated by money damages. Culp v Silverline Servs., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05077, Second Dept 8-26-26

 

, , ,

IN THIS LABOR LAW ARTICLE 6 AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION FOR UNPAID COMMISSIONS, PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED GAIA PRODUCE AS HIS EMPLOYER, SOUGHT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ANOTHER PARTY AS HIS EMPLOYER; BASED UPON THE DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” IN THE LABOR LAW, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS PROPER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to add a defendant, Nehoumovich. The suit against plaintiff’s employer, Gaia Produce, alleged the failure to pay commissions in violation of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff alleged Nehoumovich was also plaintiff’s employer. Based on the definition of “employer” in the Labor Law, the Second Department held the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit:

“Article 6 of the Labor Law sets forth a comprehensive set of statutory provisions enacted to strengthen and clarify the rights of employees to the payment of wages” … . “Labor Law § 190(3) broadly defines an ’employer’ as ‘any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service'” … . “Under the ‘economic reality’ test, the relevant factors include whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records” … . The Supreme Court is “also free to consider any other factors it deems relevant to its assessment of the economic realities” … .

Here, the proposed amendment to add Nahoumovich as a defendant was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . The proposed amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that Nahoumovich was “responsible for . . . hiring and firing,” that he “supervised [the] [p]laintiff,” “assign[ed] [the plaintiff] responsibilities concerning negotiating, pricing, and collecting,” that he “was involved in determining the terms and conditions of [the plaintiff’s] employment” and “how [the plaintiff’s] commissions were calculated,” and that he “overs[aw] commission reports.” The plaintiff further submitted a transcript of his own deposition testimony regarding those allegations, and that of Nahoumovich, who acknowledged, among other things, that he made certain hiring recommendations, supervised the plaintiff, provided the plaintiff with directives, and set up the commission structure. The fact that Nahoumovich did not sign the plaintiff’s paychecks is not dispositive … . Under the totality of the circumstances presented here, the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Nahoumovich was an “employer” within the meaning of Labor Law § 190(3) … . Sproule v Gaia Produce, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04971, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for determining whether a party is an “employer” within the meaning of the Labor Law in an action seeking unpaid commissions.

 

,

ONCE THE PARTIES ENTERED A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE, SUPREME COURT WAS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO VACATE THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court had been divested of jurisdiction over the case when the parties entered a stipulation of discontinuance. Therefore Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance:

“‘A motion must be addressed to a pending action'” … . A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been unequivocally terminated by the execution of an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance … “or actual entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement” … .

Here, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The action was unconditionally discontinued by the stipulation of discontinuance executed by the plaintiff and the defendant and filed with the court, in which the plaintiff withdrew the complaint and discontinued all claims interposed in the action, and the stipulation was silent as to the court’s retention of jurisdiction for any purpose … . Accordingly, under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s requested relief was not available by way of a motion and could only be obtained by commencing a plenary action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rini, 2026 NY Slip Op 04845, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: Here the parties entered a stipulation of discontinuance, thereby divesting the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the case. Supreme Court therefore could not consider the subsequent motion to vacate the stipulation.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INSURER (WHICH PAID PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR LOSSES) AS A PLAINTIFF UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FOR AN INDEPENDENT SUBROGATION ACTION) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add the insurer which paid plaintiffs’ losses as a plaintiff. The statute of limitations had passed for a separate subrogation action:

While an application to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 lies within the court’s sound discretion, “there is no sound basis in law to grant amendment pursuant to CPLR 3025(c) to add an untimely claim” … . Thus, a pleading cannot be amended to assert a new claim for which the statute of limitations has expired unless the assertion of the new claim is deemed to relate back to an earlier operative pleading that was filed while the new claim still would have been timely (see id.). Whether a new claim relates back to the time of the filing of the earlier pleading is governed by CPLR 203(f), which provides:

“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”

In determining whether the original pleading provides the requisite notice of the transactions or occurrences underlying the proposed new claim, a court “should not . . . look[] beyond the four corners of the original pleading” … . * * *

… [T]he “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” referenced in CPLR 203(f), and to be proved in support of the subrogation claim interposed in the proposed [amended complaint] — defendants’ management of the renovation project — are precisely the same “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” alleged in the earlier complaints. As plaintiffs point out, the only effect of the assertion of the subrogation claim is to shift the claim for a portion of the damages allegedly caused by defendants’ alleged wrongdoing from the … plaintiffs to … their insurer. 217 Trust v VIR Constr., Inc, 2026 NY Slip Op 04824, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs’ insurer, which paid plaintiffs for losses which are the subject of the complaint, was properly added to the complaint as a plaintiff, after the statute of limitations for a separate subrogation action had passed, pursuant to the relation-back doctrine.

 

, , ,

THE PARTIES IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENTERED A LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT ADVANCED FUNDS TO PLAINTIFF IN RETURN FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDS FROM THE DIVORCE CLAIM; DESPITE THE INCLUSION OF THE TERM “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” IN THE AGREEMENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THE AGREEMENT WAS IN FACT AN INVALID LOAN AT A USURIOUS 18.96% ANNUAL INTEREST RATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the parties’ divorce-litigation funding agreement was a usurious loan, not an investment, and was therefore void and unenforceable:

The parties entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated May 23, 2018 (the PSA), wherein defendant agreed to advance approximately$200,000 to plaintiff to fund the legal costs of plaintiff’s pending divorce action. In return, plaintiff agreed to assign to defendant his right to receive any proceeds from the divorce claim up to the amount owed to defendant under the PSA. The “Proceeds” consisted of “the total recovery from the Claim” and the “Claim” was defined as plaintiff’s right, title, and interest in and to any amount granted to plaintiff in connection with his pending divorce action, any appeal or settlement with respect thereto, and any related action. * * *

The PSA clarified that “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” and was expressly contingent on plaintiff’s “successful” recovery on the Claim. It proclaimed that “[i]f there is no recovery on the Claim, nothing will be owed to [defendant].” Yet, several provisions of the PSA together with the Sweetheart Guaranty … , entitled defendant to recoup the money it advanced plus interest even if “there is no recovery on the Claim,” such as in the event of plaintiff’s death or reconciliation with his wife. * * *

Considering the totality of the circumstances … , we find that the parties’ PSA was in fact a loan. The only remaining question is whether the loan was usurious. A loan is usurious if the interest exceeds the maximum legal rate of 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501[1], [2]; Banking Law § 14-a[1]). It is undisputed that under the PSA, interest accrued at 18.96% annually, which exceeds the legal limit. Denemark v New Ch. Capital, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 04553, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when an agreement constitutes a “loan” subject to the usury law rather than an “investment.”

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN SOPHISTICATED PARTIES, THE CLAUSE “THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT AGREE TO MUTUALLY WAIVE EACH OTHER [SIC] RIGHT TO SUE OR PLACE CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER” WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the contract clause “THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT AGREE TO MUTUALLY WAIVE EACH OTHER [sic] RIGHT TO SUE OR PLACE CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER” was unenforceable as against public policy:

… [T]he waiver provision … purports to completely foreclose the possibility of any form of judicial or nonjudicial review. Although … the agreement was negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated parties, freedom of contract is not merely an individual right, and enforcing the waiver provision has implications beyond the individual choices of the contracting parties … . In 159 MP Corp. v Redbridge Bedford, LLC (33 NY3d 353), the Court of Appeals upheld a waiver precluding the plaintiffs from commencing a declaratory judgment action. The Court of Appeals noted that “[c]ritically, the waiver clause at issue here does not preclude access to the courts but leaves available other judicial avenues through which plaintiffs may adjudicate their rights under the leases” … . The Court of Appeals specified that “the waiver does not impair plaintiffs’ ability to seek damages on breach of contract or tort theories” … .

Here, in contrast, the waiver provision precludes access to the courts and leaves no judicial or nonjudicial avenues through which the plaintiff may adjudicate his rights under the agreement. Thus, the waiver provision is void and unenforceable as against public policy … . Hochhauser v Urban Off. Architecture, PLLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04491, Second Dept 7-22-26

Practice Point: A contract clause with waives all access to the courts is void as against public policy.​

 

, , , ,

THE LABOR LAW PREVAILING-WAGE PROVISIONS APPLY TO PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; ANY CONTRACTUAL ATTEMPT TO SHORTEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS UNENFORECABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, answering two certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined (1) the Labor Law provisions requiring that workers receive the prevailing wage for public works projects apply irrespective of the language in a contract, and (2) any provisions purporting to shorten the statute of limitation periods in public works contracts are unenforceable:

We have accepted two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the right of a public works project employee to receive a prevailing wage under the Labor Law. We hold that Labor Law § 220 makes such claims available regardless of the underlying contract’s language and that given the unique status of the constitutional and statutory right to a prevailing wage, agreements to shorten limitation periods in public works contracts are unenforceable against such claims. ​Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03911, CtApp 6-23-26

 

, , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE THE VILLAGE FROM RAISING THE “FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM” DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge dissent, determined the defendant-developer, FPW, in a breach-of-a-real-estate-contract action brought by the plaintiff-village, was precluded from litigating a counterclaim because it never filed a notice of claim with the village. Supreme Court had ruled the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded the village’s “lack-of-notice-of-claim” argument because the village was aware of the facts underlying the counterclaim from the start of the lawsuit and failed to raise the defense until the statute of limitations had run. The Court of Appeals rejected the equitable-estoppel argument:

We have explained that equitable estoppel generally “is not applied against the government, as a matter of policy, because to do so could easily result in large scale public fraud” and “violate the doctrine of separation of powers” … . Thus, “[w]e have recognized that estoppel may be warranted in unusual factual situations to prevent injustice . . . but we have limited its use against government agencies to all but the rarest cases” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the Village did not engage in wrongful or misleading conduct warranting the application of equitable estoppel. As the Appellate Division correctly determined, participation in litigation, without more, does not constitute action calculated to mislead or discourage a party from filing a notice of claim … . That holds true here, where the Village was pressing its own breach of contract claim and therefore had every reason to participate in discovery and related court conferences, independent of FPW’s counterclaim. Moreover, the Village’s answer to the counterclaim put FPW on notice that it was raising FPW’s “fail[ure] to perform all conditions precedent” as an affirmative defense, and compliance with a notice of claim statute such as CPLR 9802 “is a condition precedent” to an action against a municipality … . Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03906, CtApp 6-18-26

Practice Point: Although the equitable estoppel doctrine can very rarely be applied to a municipality, the village did nothing improper or misleading which would warrant precluding the village’s “failure to file a notice of claim” defense to defendant’s counterclaim. There was a two-judge dissent.

 

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