You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, in a factually-complex case which cannot be fairly summarized here. determined the complaint adequately alleged both a breach and an anticipatory repudiation of a contract which encompassed the replacement by plaintiff developer of defendant’s single room occupancy building with a mixed-use residential and commercial building for a 40-year lease term:

” ‘An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of [its] contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for . . . performance has arrived’ ” … . Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach, “if one party to a contract repudiates [its] duties thereunder prior to the time designated for performance and before [it] has received all of the consideration due . . . thereunder, such repudiation entitles the nonrepudiating party to claim damages for total breach” … . To constitute repudiation, “there must be some express and absolute refusal to perform” … that is “positive and unequivocal” … .

The first cause of action alleges [defendant] engaged in multiple acts that breached the ground lease agreement: a set of acts in refusing to sign the cure agreement tendered in 2015, and a 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement. Contrary to the conclusions of the courts below, a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation can both be stated on these facts at the pleading stage. * * *

Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, which we must do at this stage of the proceeding, [plaintiff] sufficiently demonstrated that [defendant’s] 2021 statement was both a new development and a distinct “material breach that escalated, for the first time, to an unequivocal repudiation” … . Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02223, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: Here the complaint adequately alleged both a breach of contract and an anticipatory repudiation of the contract.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer in this traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant driver was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee acting within the scope of employment:

… [Plaintiff] allegedly was injured when a vehicle he was operating collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Luis F. Leal. * * * The plaintiffs alleged … that Leal was [defendant] Publishers’ employee, and that Leal was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. …

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his [or her] own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule” … . “The fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … . Brielmeier v Leal, 2024 NY Slip Op 02163, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: An employer may be responsible for the negligence of an employee, but is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. The fact that the employment contract uses the term “independent contractor” is not dispositive. The relevant criteria are explained.

 

, ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH A TORT ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action and the fraudulent conveyance action should not have been consolidated:

In 2016, plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against defendant eCommission Solutions, LLC (eCommission). In 2022, plaintiff commenced a fraudulent conveyance action against eCommission and its president, Paul Hoffman, and his wife, alleging that Hoffman transferred millions from eCommission to himself with the intent to defraud creditors like plaintiff.

… When one action sounds in contract and the other in tort, it is inappropriate to grant consolidation … . Indeed, the breach of contract and fraudulent conveyance actions present different questions of law and fact … . Moreover, the fraudulent conveyance action will be moot if plaintiffs fail to win the breach of contract action … . Finally, the two actions are at different stages, so that consolidation would lead to delay in trying the breach of contract action … .

Discovery in the fraudulent conveyance action should be stayed until the breach of contract action is resolved … . 3B Assoc. LLC v Ecommission Solutions, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02086, First Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: A breach of contract action should not be consolidated with a tort action (here an action for fraudulent conveyance).

 

, , , ,

A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY WHICH VIOLATES NEW YORK LAW IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that the forum selection clause in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable. The opinion is comprehensive and discusses several substantive civil procedure, contract law, corporation law, insurance law, workers’ compensation law and public policy issues which cannot fairly be summarized here:

This action is just one of many such actions commenced across the country alleging that the defendant Applied Underwriters, Inc. (hereinafter Applied Underwriters), and affiliated entities, all subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., deceptively circumvented state laws and regulations in the marketing and sale of an unlawful workers’ compensation insurance program. Here, the defendants seek to enforce a forum selection clause, in favor of Nebraska, contained in an insurance policy that New York State regulators have found violates New York law. While parties are generally free to select a forum in which to resolve their contractual disputes, here, where it is alleged by the plaintiff, and found by New York State regulators, that New York law has been violated, a foreign corporation may not profit from such violation to the detriment of New York employers and workers. The forum selection clause contained in an illegal insurance policy is not enforceable. As a matter of public policy, New York companies shall not be compelled to litigate in Nebraska to vindicate their rights. Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v Applied Underwriters, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02032, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A forum selection clause (designating Nebraska as the forum) in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

, , , ,

THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC; THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION’S VICE PRESIDENT WAS LICENSED AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY, WHICH DID THE ELECTRICAL WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, WAS LICENSED DOESN’T MATTER; THE CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical-contractor corporation could not sue for breach of contract because the corporation was not licensed in NYC to do electrical work, even though plaintiff’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company (QNCC) which did the work as plaintiff corporation’s subcontractor was licensed:

Administrative Code § 27-3017(a) states that it shall be unlawful for any person to, inter alia, perform electrical work in the City of New York unless that person is a licensed master electrician or special electrician. Licensing statutes are to be strictly construed … . …

The plaintiff’s contention that recovery should not be denied because QNCC was a duly licensed subcontractor which performed the electrical work is without merit. This Court has previously held that such a relationship is insufficient to permit an unlicensed contractor to recover for work performed in the City … . “‘So strict has been judicial construction of the statutory requirement through concern for the public health and welfare that the requirement may not be satisfied by employing or subletting’ the work to an appropriately licensed person” … . Moreover, that the plaintiff’s vice president had a master electrician’s license, and that the defendant’s architect knew that the electrical work permits were issued to an entity other than the plaintiff, does not bar the application of the above rule … . Electrical Contr. Solutions Corp. v Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01907, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code requirement that electrical work must be done by licensed entities or persons is strictly construed. Here the electrical-contractor corporation’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company which did the work as a subcontractor was licensed, but the corporation was not. The corporation could not sue for breach of contract.

 

,

HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the “corporation by estoppel” doctrine prevented defendant from arguing the real estate purchase agreement was invalid because the corporate plaintiff (RC) did not exist at the time the contract was executed. RC was eventually formed years later just before this action commenced. The defendant had dealt with RC as an incorporated entity for several years. Therefore defendant was estopped from denying RC’s validity to avoid their obligations under the contract:

Generally, it is true that “‘[s]ince a nonexistent entity cannot acquire rights or assume liabilities, a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract'” … . However, under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, “one who has recognized [an] organization as a corporation in business dealings should not be allowed to quibble or raise immaterial issues which do not concern him or her in the slightest degree or affect his or her substantial rights” …. Thus, “parties who deal with an entity holding itself out as a corporation and who receive performance from such entity are estopped from avoiding their obligations to it” … . Teva Realty, LLC v Cornaga Holding Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01833, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff corporation did not exist when the real estate contract was entered but was formed years later just before the instant litigation was commenced. Defendant dealt with plaintiff as a corporation for years and received a benefit from the contract. The doctrine of “corporation by estoppel” prohibited defendant from arguing the contract was not valid because the corporation was not formed at the time the contract was entered.

 

, , ,

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

 

A 2021 BUYBACK AGEEMENT BETWEEN A NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND A NATURAL GAS SELLER WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF A WINTER STORM WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PRODUCER’S ABILITY TO DELIVER THE USUAL AMOUNT OF GAS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED BASED UPON THE “FORCE MAJEURE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL 2019 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined a buyback agreement between Vaquero, a natural gas producer, and Hartree, a natural gas seller, which was entered in anticipation of an imminent winter storm during which Vaquero would be unable to meet its gas-delivery requirements under the 2019 contract, was valid and enforceable. The buyback contract could not be cancelled by asserting the “force majeure” clause in the original delivery and sales contract entered in 2019:

To the extent that Vaquero argues that its force majeure declaration eliminated its obligations under the buyback, the argument fails. The parties agree that the buyback did not require any physical delivery of gas, and created only a financial obligation. Indeed, Vaquero’s witnesses conceded at their depositions that the February 12, 2021, buyback was a purely financial agreement, with no physical delivery expected from either party. The mere fact that Vaquero had no gas to sell did not relieve it of its financial obligation to Hartree under the February 12, 2021 buyback agreement which did not contain a force majeure provision … . Moreover, the parties are sophisticated entities familiar with the natural gas industry and had a prior history of buyback arrangements. The February 12, 2021, buyback agreement, similar to the parties’ other buyback agreements, created an independent carve out that, because no physical delivery of gas was required, is not affected by the force majeure provisions of the base agreement … . Hartree Partners, LP v Vaquero Permian Processing LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01779, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: Here a 2021 contract entered into in anticipation of the natural gas producer’s inability to deliver the required amount of gas during an imminent winter storm could not be cancelled under the “force majeure” clause in the original 2019 contract between the parties. The 2021 buyback agreement was an independent, enforceable contract which did not include a “force majeure” clause.

 

,

HERE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE WAS DEEMED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELATONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND THE ACTUAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that a liquidated damages clause in a contract will constitute an unenforceable penalty if the amount bears no relation to the actual damage. Here, pursuant to the real estate purchase agreement,  $35,000 was put in escrow pending the resolution of three open building permits. The purchaser demanded the escrow funds because two of the three building permits remained open. The Second Department found there was no relationship between the $35,000 liquidated damages and the actual damage:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the sum deposited into the escrow account had no relationship to the estimated cost of “closing out” the open building permits in relation to the subject improvements to the property. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that at the time that the escrow agreement was entered into, the estimated actual damages were readily ascertainable. Under these circumstances, the purported liquidated damages clause constituted an unenforceable penalty … . Schmuelian v Bichoupan, 2024 NY Slip Op 01738, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the amount has no relationship with the actual damages. In that circumstance the liquidate damages constitute an unenforceable penalty.

 

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