You are here: / Contract Law
,

IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on the basis of the release because it was sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud:

Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges that the general release that was the basis for dismissal of the complaint was fraudulently induced based on defendant’s misrepresentations upon which plaintiff justifiably relied … . For example, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendant induced plaintiff’s signature on the release by stating that if plaintiff did not sign, defendant would withdraw a New York Gaming Commission complaint that plaintiff had urged defendant to file, when, in fact, there was no complaint to withdraw because defendant had falsely represented he had filed the complaint.

Upon a “detailed analysis of whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of overreaching or unfair circumstances such that enforcement of the general release[] would be inequitable” … , we concluded that dismissal of the complaint based on the release was not warranted. Jones v Jacobs, 2025 NY Slip Op 00377, First Dept 1-23-25

Practice Point: Here the complaint sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud. The complaint should not have been dismissed based on the release.​

 

,

PRIVATE CONTRACT DISPUTES, UNIQUE TO THE PARTIES, ARE NOT COVERED BY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 OR 35O WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO CONSUMER-ORIENTED CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that a General Business Law section 349 or 350 action must be based upon consumer-oriented conduct, not, as here, on a unique contract between private parties:

“To successfully assert a claim under General Business Law § 349 or § 350, a party must allege that its adversary has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading, and that the party suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice” … . “‘[P]arties . . . must, at the threshold, charge conduct that is consumer oriented'” … . “Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, . . . [do] not fall within the ambit of the statute” … . A “single shot transaction” … , which is “tailored to meet the purchaser’s wishes and requirements” … , “does not, without more, constitute consumer-oriented conduct for the purposes of [General Business Law §§ 349 and 350]” … . Here, the complaint … failed to sufficiently allege that the … defendants engaged in a consumer-oriented deceptive act or practice … . Katsorhis v 718 W. Beech St, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00211, Second Dept 1-15-25

​Practice Point: General Business Law 349 and 350 actions must be based upon consumer-oriented conduct. Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, are not encompassed by General Business Law 349 and 350.

 

, ,

PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined the terms of the life insurance policy, which was terminated by the defendant insurer, were unambiguous and enforceable. The General Business Law section 349 (h) cause of action alleging deceptive business practices survived but any punitive damages were limited to three times actual damages. The nature of the life insurance policy and payment scheme are too complex to fairly describe here. The $2 million life insurance policy was issued to an 82-year-old woman. With respect to the available damages in a private General Business Law 349 (h) action, the court wrote:

… [T]he legislature carefully calibrated damages at the time section 349 (h) was enacted. We decline to alter that balance by making available a remedy that goes far beyond what the legislature contemplated. As evidenced by the increased penalties on similar statutes, the legislature will act where it believes current remedies are insufficient. It has not done so here. We therefore conclude that punitive damages in addition to the treble damages delineated in section 349 (h) are unavailable. Hobish v AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 00183, CtApp 1-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of the damages available in a private General Business Law 349 (h) deceptive-business-practices action.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE IN PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE HOTEL; AGODA’S TERMS OF USE LIMITED LIABILITY TO THE BOOKING SERVICES AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AT THE HOTEL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant hotel booking service, Agoda, could not be compelled to arbitrate in this slip and fall action against the hotel booked through Agoda. The terms of use confined Agoda’s potential liability to the booking services and expressly excluded liability for personal injury:

A “party cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless the agreement to arbitrate expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute” … . Where arbitration provisions do not clearly and unequivocally provide that questions about the scope of the arbitration provisions are for the arbitration panel to determine, the threshold question whether the dispute is encompassed within an agreement to arbitrate is for the courts (CPLR 7503[b] …).

The arbitration clause in the terms of use covers “all disputes or claims arising out of or relating to your relationship with Agoda.” The terms of use also define Agoda’s role as providing a platform for individuals to browse information about accommodations and make reservations at accommodations. Furthermore, the terms of use make clear that “Agoda does not in any way . . . own, manage, operate or control” the accommodations and that Agoda will not be liable in damages for any “(PERSONAL) INJURY . . ., OR OTHER DAMAGES, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACCOMMODATION.” Because plaintiff’s claim is one to recover damages for a personal injury caused by the resort’s negligence, it does not arise from or relate to the relationship between plaintiff and Agoda, which was limited to plaintiff’s booking a reservation at the resort, and therefore is not arbitrable … .

As for Agoda’s motion to dismiss, the terms of use constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1), and the limitation of liability clause in the terms of use definitively disposes of plaintiff’s claim to recover damages from Agoda for personal injury caused by the resort’s alleged negligence … . McWashington v Hyatt Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 00050, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Here the hotel booking service’s terms of use expressly excluded liability for plaintiff’s personal injury at the hotel. Therefore the booking service could not be compelled to arbitrate in plaintiff’s slip and fall case.

 

, ,

THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD HAVE DEMANDED PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE LEASE, NOT WHEN THE DEMAND WAS ACTUALLY MADE YEARS LATER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract (here, a lease) started running when a demand for payment could have been made, not when the demand was actually made:

… [A]lthough the motion court awarded the entirety of the amounts of unpaid additional rent going back to 2006, the landlord’s inexplicable delay in asserting these counterclaims until September 13, 2019 rendered the amounts that accrued before September 13, 2013 time-barred (CPLR 213[2]). The law is well settled that the statute of limitations on breach of contract claims begin to run “when the party that was owed money had the right to demand payment, not when it actually made the demand” … . Because the limitations period cannot be extended “by simply failing to make a demand” … , the judgment must be reduced to include only those amounts that accrued on or after September 13, 2013, and we remand for the calculation of the proper award and commensurate reduction in statutory interest. Abarrotes Mixteca Corp., Inc. v Brisk, 2025 NY Slip Op 00034, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: For a breach of contract, the statute of limitations begins to run when the party can demand payment pursuant to the contract, not when the demand is actually made. The statute of limitations cannot be extended by failing to make a demand.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A LYFT CAR WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED BY HIS FRIEND THROUGH THE FRIEND’S ACCOUNT; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD SCROLLED THROUGH AND AGREED TO LYFT’S TERMS OF SERVICE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who used another’s Lyft account to order transportation, and who was injured in an accident involving the Lyft car, was subject to an arbitration provision in the contract between Lyft and the account-holder. Whether the plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause was deemed to be an issue to be decided by the arbitrator:

Arbitration must be compelled because plaintiff was a party to an arbitration agreement with Lyft that expressly delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. It is undisputed that, prior to the subject accident, plaintiff scrolled through and agreed to Lyft’s Terms of Service (the TOS), which included an agreement to arbitrate. As part of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to delegate “disputes concerning the arbitrability of a Claim (including disputes about the scope, applicability, enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Agreement)” to the arbitrator. When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision “even if the arguments of the party seeking to arbitrate ‘appear[] to the court to be frivolous’ or even ‘wholly groundless'” … .

There is no dispute that if plaintiff had ordered the subject ride through his own Lyft account, then the instant claims would be subject to arbitration because plaintiff was party to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with a valid and enforceable delegation provision — even if there were a question as to the arbitration agreement’s scope … . We find that the question of whether the agreement to arbitrate encompassed claims stemming from plaintiff’s presence in a Lyft that he did not order is a question of arbitrability that must be decided by the arbitrator … . Samuel v Islam, 2024 NY Slip Op 06675, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: If you scroll through and agree to the terms of service when a Lyft car is ordered though another’s account, and you are subsequently injured in an accident in the Lyft car, you are compelled to arbitrate the question whether you are subject to the arbitration clause just as the account-holder would be.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NO “ESPINAL” EXCEPTIONS WERE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR DEMONSTRATED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT MAKE THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant snow-removal contractor was entitled to summary judgment in this parking-lot slip and fall case. The defendant demonstrated plaintiff was not a party to the snow-removal contract with the owner of the parking lot, a nursing home. The plaintiff had not alleged in the complaint that any “Espinal” exception applied and was unable to raise a question of fact on the “Espinal” issue in response to defendant’s summary judgment motion:

“‘As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties'” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” …  * * *

… [T]he defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence that the plaintiff was not a party to the snow removal contract … . Since the plaintiff did not allege facts in the pleadings that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, the defendants were not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact based on any of the Espinal exceptions. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants launched a force or instrument of harm. The affidavit of a former coworker that the plaintiff relied upon was insufficient because it only addressed the general conditions of the parking lot and not the cause of the specific ice on which the plaintiff allegedly was injured … . The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants entirely displaced the nursing home’s duty to maintain the parking lots. The affidavit of the former assistant to the head administrator of the nursing home that the plaintiff submitted failed to address the language in the snow removal contract that provided that the nursing home retained some duties and responsibilities to maintain the parking lots … . Brito-Hernandez v Superior Contr., 2024 NY Slip Op 06619, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of all the issues relevant to suing a snow-removal contractor for a slip and fall. Are any “Espinal” exceptions raised or applicable? Did the snow-removal contract make the contractor completely responsible for maintenance of the parking lot, or did the property-owner retain some responsibility?

 

,

THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the New York complaint based upon the choice of forum clause (Arizona) in the contract should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the contract was illegal under New York law. But a choice of forum clause is independent from a choice of law clause:

The contract between the parties provided that Arizona law would govern “the rights and obligations” of the parties under the contract. It further provided that all disputes arising out of the contract “shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state or federal courts sitting in Maricopa County, Arizona.” That forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown by plaintiff to be ” ‘unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” … .

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the contract’s “pay-if-paid” provision, together with a provision prohibiting plaintiff from contacting clients of defendant, rendered the contract void as against public policy of New York. Plaintiff’s argument, however, “is misdirected [inasmuch as t]he issue [it] raise[s] is really one of choice of law, not choice of forum” … . ” ‘[O]bjections to a choice of law clause are not a warrant for failure to enforce a choice of forum clause’ ” … . Plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the forum selection clause contravenes New York public policy … . Nor has plaintiff shown that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust or alleged that the clause was the result of fraud or overreaching … . Plaintiff’s further argument in opposition to the motion—i.e., that it would be a hardship for plaintiff’s owner to go to Arizona to litigate this dispute—is an insufficient basis on which to deny the motion … . The fact that New York may be a more convenient forum is immaterial inasmuch as defendant’s motion is based on the parties’ contract and not on the doctrine of forum non conveniens … . Prestige Lawn Care of WNY, LLC v Facilitysource, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06483, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of a choice of forum clause versus a choice of law clause versus the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, THE ESSENCE OF THE LAWSUIT IS THE ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS; THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT NULLIFIED THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE THE JURY-TRIAL WAIVER PROVISIONS REMAIN ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the “fraudulent inducement” claim in this breach of contract action was covered by the contractual waiver of a jury trial. The First Department distinguished this case, which is in essence a “breach of contract” action, from cases where fraudulent inducement is alleged to have nullified the entire agreement. The contracts here involved the manufacture of semiconductor chips by defendant GlobalFoundries for plaintiff IBM:

From 2013 to June 2015, plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and defendant GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., a manufacturer of semiconductors, engaged in discussions concerning a collaborative venture whereby IBM would transfer its microelectronics business, including technology, engineers and employees, to GlobalFoundries, along with a sum of $1.5 billion, and GlobalFoundries would develop, manufacture and supply next generation 14nm and 10nm high performance semiconductor chips for IBM. * * *

… [W]here a claim of fraudulent inducement challenges the validity of the agreement, a provision waiving the right to a jury trial in litigation arising out of the agreement may not apply … . This Court has taken care to distinguish between actions where the primary claim is fraudulent inducement and the validity of the entire contract is clearly being challenged … , and actions that do not challenge the validity of the contract but rather seek to enforce the underlying contract by obtaining damages for fraudulent inducement … . The present case falls into the latter category. * * *

It is clear from IBM’s complaint that its primary claim is not fraudulent inducement but rather breach of the agreements. International Business Machs. Corp. v GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06425, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: It is possible that fraudulent inducement can nullify an underlying contract rendering all of the contract provisions unenforceable. Here however, although fraudulent inducement was alleged, the essence of the suit is the alleged breach of the underlying contracts. Therefore, the jury-trial waiver provisions remain enforceable.

 

,

HERE THE PROVISIONS IN THE LETTER AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter agreement did not give plaintiff an exclusive right to sell the property:

Plaintiff’s argument that the parties’ letter agreement gave it an exclusive right to sell is unavailing. To create an exclusive right to sell, a contract “must clearly and expressly provide that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . The agreement here lacks express language excluding a direct conveyance by defendants, nor is that a necessary implication of its terms … . The agreement’s language requiring defendants to “inform” plaintiff if contacted about potential transactions is insufficient to create an exclusive right to sell … . Moreover, plaintiff fails to show that the agreement’s tail provision, entitling plaintiff to a fee for efforts at procuring a transaction during its engagement even if the transaction were completed only after the termination of that engagement, necessarily implied that the parties intended to create an exclusive right to sell. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v ObvioHealth Pte Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 06421, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into the criteria for conferring the exclusive right to sell property.

 

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