You are here: / Contract Law
, , , , ,

THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL; THE DEFENDANT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEEK A STAY PENDING APPEAL; THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, FILED BY THE BANK AT THE OUTSET OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, WAS STILL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE DID NOT AFFECT THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO A GOOD FAITH PURCHASER AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the defendant in the foreclosure action, Yesmin, upon reversal of the judgment of foreclosure and sale on appeal, was not entitled to cancel and discharge the referee’s deed transferring title to a good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property. It is significant here that the defendant in the foreclosure action did not seek a stay pending appeal. The notice of pendency, filed by the bank in the foreclosure action, which was still in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale, did not affect the title acquired by the good faith purchaser:

This appeal raises the question of what effect an extant notice of pendency has on the title to real property acquired by a third party from a judicial foreclosure sale when the judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on the appeal of a defendant to the foreclosure action. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a notice of pendency that was unexpired at the time of the foreclosure sale has no effect on the title acquired by a good faith purchaser for value from a sale conducted pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale. * * *

Once a judgment is entered, the need to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to protect the right to restitution of the property is shared equally by a defendant or a plaintiff against whom the judgment is entered. Where a judgment has been entered against a plaintiff, “the plaintiff’s right to impair the marketability of the property during the pendency of an appeal [is conditioned] upon the issuance of a discretionary CPLR 5519(c) stay” … . Thus, regardless of whether the judgment is issued in favor of a defendant or the plaintiff, once a judgment is entered, a stay is necessary to protect the property, and in the absence of a stay, the winning party is free to transfer the property as it sees fit. * * *

Since [the good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property] established that it is “a purchaser in good faith and for value” whose title would be affected by restitution of Yesmin’s property rights lost by the judgment of foreclosure and sale, Yesmin may not seek restitution by canceling the referee’s deed and, instead, is limited to monetary relief against the plaintiff to the foreclosure action (CPLR 5523 …). Yesmin v Aliobaba, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02964, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action which is appealed does not seek a stay pending appeal, the reversal on appeal does not affect title transferred to a good faith purchaser at the foreclosure sale.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the construction manager, Tishman, was the property owner’s statutory agent in charge of safety at the worksite. Therefore Tishman could be liable for injury to a worker pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

“A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law . . . [§ ] 240(1) . . . or § 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “The label given a defendant, whether ‘construction manager’ or ‘general contractor,’ is not determinative” … . “Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the ‘authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'” … .

Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the construction management services contract, which charged Tishman with, inter alia, enforcing subcontractors’ compliance with safety requirements and taking precautions to minimize the risk of injuries. The contract further gave Tishman the right to choose the means and methods of construction. Although Tishman did not directly supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, Tishman’s safety manager for the project testified at his deposition that he was “in charge of safety at . . . [the] project full-time.” In addition, a foreperson for another trade testified at his deposition that Tishman would correct other workers who were performing their work in an unsafe manner. Under these circumstances, Tishman was a statutory agent of DDC and was, therefore, potentially liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Weekes v Tishman Tech. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02959, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Although a construction manager is generally not liable to an injured worker under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6), here the construction manager was, by contract, a statutory agent of the property owner responsible for the supervision of the work and the safety of the workers. Statutory agents of the property owner or general contractor are potentially liable to injured workers under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

, , ,

HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the holdover rent, which was three times the existing rent, constituted appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty. Plaintiffs are purchasers of defendant’s cooperative apartment:

Defendant seller, who requested continued possession of the apartment after closing for one month, complains that the holdover rent set in the liquidated damages provision of the post-closing possession agreement is grossly disproportionate because, over the course of 30 days, it amounted to three times the amount of rent set for the initial 30-day period of possession. However, “[w]hether a provision in an agreement is an enforceable liquidation of damages or an unenforceable penalty is a question of law, giving due consideration to the nature of the contract and the circumstances” … . The party “seeking to avoid liquidated damages” bears the burden “to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact, a penalty” … .

Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. “[L]iquidated damages clauses that permit a landlord to recover between two or three times the amount of the existing rent or license fee in a holdover proceeding are not ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the probable loss and therefore, not a penalty” … . Moreover, defendant does not account for plaintiffs’ payment during the holdover period of the maintenance and assessment, in addition to the mortgage. The agreement further provides that defendant is responsible for plaintiffs’ costs of administering the agreement, among other things, which were unknown at the time the agreement was signed. Thus, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Sang Min Kim v Bedouet, 2025 NY Slip Op 02875, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here holdover rent in an amount three times the existing rent was deemed appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE USE FOR THE REQUIRED TEN YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; HOWEVER BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE WAS PERMISSIVE AND CONTINUED FOR 50 YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY ESTOPPEL WERE MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendants’ properties, but did have an easement by estoppel. Because there was an agreement among the original owners of the three adjacent camps to construct, maintain and use a roadway providing vehicular access to all three camps, and because there had been no hostile use of the roadway for ten years, the requirements for a prescriptive easement were not met. However plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by estoppel. The court noted that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to an easement by estoppel:

[Re; a prescriptive easement] … [B]ecause plaintiffs’ predecessors’ use of the extension was permissive, the element of hostility was negated … . Therefore, no adverse use could have arisen until there was the assertion of a hostile right … , which, at the earliest, occurred in 2018. We are presented with a permissive use that did not ripen into a prescriptive one for the time required … .

Yet, these same facts establish plaintiffs’ entitlement to an easement by estoppel … . “An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner’s representation that an easement exists” … . The uncontested existence of the agreement between the parties’ predecessors for the construction and use of the extension, together with the time and expense of not only the initial construction but, also, the continued 50-year maintenance thereof, demonstrates that plaintiffs “undertook . . . action[s] to their detriment in reasonable reliance upon a representation that they held an easement” … . Sardino v Scholet Family Irrevocable Trust, 2025 NY Slip Op 02828, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear illustrations of the criteria for a prescriptive easement and an easement by estoppel.

 

, ,

TENANT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT BECAUSE THE TENANT HAD ALREADY STOPPED PAYING RENT WHEN IT VACATED THE PREMISES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant’s claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment was precluded because the tenant was in default (failure to pay rent) at the time the tenant vacated the premises:

Under … the lease between the landlord and defendant tenant … , the tenant was entitled to “peaceabl[y] and quietly enjoy the premises,” which were in the basement of the landlord’s building, as long as it performed its obligations under the lease, which included the obligation to pay rent. Under … the lease, the tenant waived the provisions of Real Property Law § 227. The premises were shut down in March 2020 under Executive Order 202.7 (9 NYCRR 8.202.7) in response to COVID. At that time, the tenant stopped paying rent. * * *

The tenant is precluded from asserting a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it was already in default of its obligation to pay rent at the time it vacated the leased premises. The law is clear that, in order for a tenant to assert a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the tenant must have performed all obligations which are a condition precedent to its right to insist upon the covenant … . When a tenant vacates the premises after defaulting on its obligation to pay rent, it is deprived of its right to insist upon the performance of the covenant of quiet enjoyment … . By the express terms of the lease, the tenant was obligated to pay rent while remaining in possession of the premises as a condition precedent to receiving the benefit of quiet enjoyment of the premises. Since the tenant remained in possession of the premises without paying rent, the tenant has failed to satisfy the condition precedent in the lease and is thereby precluded from claiming a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment … . 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v E&B Barbers Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02546, Frist Dept 4-29-25

Practice Point: Here, under the terms of the lease, payment of rent was a condition precedent for the benefit of quiet enjoyment of the premises. Therefore the tenant, who had stopped paying rent at the time the premises were vacated, could not make a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, affirmed the arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine:

… [T]he court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondents that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that [the employer] directed petitioner to receive the vaccine by a date certain, that it apprised her that her continued employment was dependent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . Further, the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination did not violate public policy and was not irrational.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add allegations supporting “piercing the corporate veil” in this breach of contract action should have been granted:

“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” … . “Because a decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, the New York cases may not be reduced to definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when the power may be exercised” … . However, “[g]enerally, 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 plaintiff must adequately allege the existence of corporate obligation and that defendant exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” … . “[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego. In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, [g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form” … . Another factor to be considered is whether the corporation and its owners shared “common office space” … . “A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations” … , and “a fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC v Franklin Exhibit Mgt. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for “piercing the corporate veil” in the context of a motion to amend the complaint to add the relevant allegations.

 

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