You are here: / Contract Law
,

AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.

The Second Department determined plaintiff-son’s complaint seeking an injunction prohibiting his mother (defendant) from transferring any property mother inherited from father (Vitus) was properly dismissed. Mother and father, by contract, agreed not to modify or revoke their wills without the “mutual written consent of the parties.” The court found there was no contractual impediment to mother’s transferring (the inherited) property after father’s death and plaintiff could not maintain a breach of contract action during defendant’s lifetime:

​

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, there is nothing in the unambiguous language of the agreement which prevents the defendant from making inter vivos gifts or transfers of assets she inherited from Vitus’s residuary estate … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), directed dismissal of the causes of action for injunctive relief and breach of contract to the extent that they are based on any past and future inter vivos transfers of any property inherited by the defendant from Vitus’s residuary estate.

Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211[a][7] …), the Supreme Court correctly directed the dismissal of the complaint to the extent that it sought to enjoin the defendant from breaching the agreement by revoking or modifying her will or executing a new will. During the defendant’s lifetime, the plaintiff is precluded from maintaining an action predicated upon a breach of the agreement as it relates to the defendant’s promise not to revoke or modify her will or execute a new will … . Tretter v Tretter, 2017 NY Slip Op 03982, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)/CONTRACT LAW (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)

, ,

ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, reinstated a couple of causes of action in a lawsuit stemming from the purchase of residential mortgage-backed securities, the bulk of which was deemed time-barred. A limited backstop guaranty cause of action and a cause of action stemming from the failure to notify of a material breach were reinstated. The intertwined contracts and guarantees and the legal reasoning stemming from recent similar cases are too detailed to fairly summarize here. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03881, 1st Dept 5-11-17

 

SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CONTRACT LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)

, ,

ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 

The Third Department determined defendant’s oral offer to sell to plaintiff her shares in a family corporation (SEI) formed solely to hold one piece of property (Beach Cove) as its single asset was subject to the statute of frauds (and therefore unenforceable). The court further found that certain actions, like opening a bank account, did not amount to part performance sufficient to overcome the writing requirement of the statute of frauds:

​

SEI was a single-asset corporation — that single asset being its ownership of Beach Cove — and, inasmuch as the alleged oral agreement involved the sale of plaintiff’s shares of stock in a corporation whose only asset was an interest in real property, the statute of frauds indeed applied here … . As the alleged oral agreement was not reduced to writing, plaintiff could avoid application of the statute of frauds only if her conduct fell within the part performance exception. In this regard, while the actions upon which plaintiff relies — i.e., opening a bank account in anticipation of a wire transfer of funds from defendant, retrieving her SEI stock certificates to relinquish to defendant, hiring an attorney to coordinate with defendant and/or reduce the alleged oral agreement to writing, timely removing her personal possessions from Beach Cove and promptly vacating the premises in accordance with defendant’s alleged wishes — are consistent with plaintiff’s assertion that she and defendant had a deal to sell plaintiff’s shares in SEI to defendant for $900,000, such actions are not unequivocally referable to — or unintelligible without reference to — the alleged oral agreement, nor so substantial in quality to irremediably alter the situation. Wells v Hodgkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 03824, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/REAL PROPERTY (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/CORPORATION LAW  (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)

,

RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release referred only to claims arising from injuries suffered by defendant, and not injuries suffered by another:

In March 2013, third-party defendant John Salewski, while operating a tractor trailer owned by his employer and third-party defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc., was involved in a collision with a tractor trailer operated by defendant. Plaintiff is Salewski’s wife and was a passenger in the vehicle operated by Salewski at the time of the accident. Defendant commenced a personal injury action against Salewski and Werner for damages allegedly sustained in that accident. That action was settled in June 2014, and, in connection therewith, defendant executed a general release in favor of Salewski and Werner. In April 2015, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for damages that she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant answered and thereafter commenced a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Salewski and Werner. Instead of answering, Salewski and Werner moved to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of release. Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that the plain language of the release barred the third-party action. * * *

Here, the release clearly defines the incident, the claim and the lawsuit. The fact that there are multiple references to the term “injuries” indicates an unambiguous intention to limit the release’s application only to the personal injuries suffered by defendant in the incident. We further find this language to be a clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intention that the release applies only to claims related to defendant’s injuries. As such, and giving full meaning and effect to its material provisions, the release plainly manifests an intent to release Salewski and Werner for any and all claims related to defendant’s personal injuries, and not to claims for contribution and indemnification for injuries allegedly suffered by another party — here, plaintiff … . Salewski v Music, 2017 NY Slip Op 03582, 3rd Dept 5-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/RELEASES (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for money had and received should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he gave the proceeds of an annuity to his sister (defendant) for safe-keeping (in her bank account) until he decided how to dispose of it. The agreement was oral but the cause of action was in the nature of quasi-contract (unjust enrichment) and was therefore not barred by the statute of frauds:

“The essential elements of a cause of action for money had and received are (1) the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant benefitted from receipt of the money, and (3) under principles of equity and good conscience, the defendant should not be permitted to keep the money. The action depends upon equitable principles in the sense that broad considerations of right, justice and morality apply to it” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to assert a cause of action for money had and received. The complaint alleges that the defendant received a benefit when she received the proceeds of the plaintiff’s surrendered annuity, with the understanding that the defendant would keep those proceeds safe while the plaintiff determined how he wanted to dispose of the funds … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a plaintiff need not allege malice to state a cause of action for money had and received … . Litvinoff v Wright, 2017 NY Slip Op 03501, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

 

CONTRACT BETWEEN NYU AND A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CANCER-INHIBITING DRUG IS AMBIGUOUS, NYU’S COMPLAINT SEEKING ROYALTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined the terms of a contract between New York University (NYU) and a pharmaceutical company were ambiguous. Therefore NYU’s complaint seeking royalties for its role in the development of a cancer-inhibiting drug should not have been dismissed. The language of the contract is too technical to fairly summarize here. New York Univ. v Pfizer Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03464, 1st Dept. 5-2-17

 

CONTACT LAW (CONTRACT BETWEEN NYU AND A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CANCER-INHIBITING DRUG IS AMBIGUOUS, NYU’S COMPLAINT SEEKING ROYALTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/AMBIGUITY (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT BETWEEN NYU AND A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CANCER-INHIBITING DRUG IS AMBIGUOUS, NYU’S COMPLAINT SEEKING ROYALTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

, ,

NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined plaintiff chef’s failure to allege out-of-pocket loss in this fraudulent inducement action required dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff was hired by defendant restaurant (Chipotle) to develop a ramen restaurant chain. Plaintiff was an at will employee by the terms of his contract. All went well until plaintiff was told defendant had contracted with another chef for the same service, the deal had fallen apart, and the other chef would sue upon the opening of the ramen restaurant. Plaintiff was fired after confronting defendant about the deal with the other chef. Plaintiff alleged he was fraudulently induced to contract with Chipotle in that he never would have entered the agreement had he been informed of the failed deal with the other chef:

In New York, as in multiple other states, “‘[t]he true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong’ or what is known as the ‘out-of-pocket’ rule” … . Under that rule, “[d]amages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not to compensate them for what they might have gained . . . . [T]here can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud” … . Moreover, this Court has “consistent[ly] refus[ed] to allow damages for fraud based on the loss of a contractual bargain, the extent, and indeed . . . the very existence of which is completely undeterminable and speculative” … . Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03445, CtApp 5-2-17

FRAUD (NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)/FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (CONTRACT LAW, NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, CONTRACT LAW, NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant snow removal contractor’s (Krotz’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The contractor was hired to plow only the center driveway area, not the parking area where plaintiff fell. It could not be said, therefore, the contractor launched an instrument of harm, the only theory under which the contractor could possibly (under the facts) be liable in tort to plaintiff based upon the plowing contract. The court noted that since the only Espinal factor that may have been alleged sufficiently was “launching an instrument of harm,” that was the only factor the contractor needed to negate in the motion for summary judgment:

​

Here, any duty that Krotz had with respect to snowplowing on the subject property arose exclusively out of its contract with the apartment defendants … . It is well settled, however, that ” a contractual obligation, standing alone, will impose a duty only in favor of the promisee and intended third-party beneficiaries’ “… , and “will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party,” i.e., a person who is not a party to the contract … . There are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the allegations in the pleadings are sufficient to require Krotz to negate the possible applicability of the first Espinal exception in establishing its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … , we conclude that Krotz met its initial burden of establishing that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition … . Lingenfelter v Delevan Terrace Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03309, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/ESPINAL FACTORS (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM  (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

, ,

EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED.

The Third Department determined the policy exclusion for injury stemming from an assault controlled and defendant insurer was not required to defend the action by defendant bar patron, Christian, who alleged-plaintiff bar’s employee injured him when ejecting him from the bar. The language of the exclusion took precedence over the general liability provisions. Any negligence causes of action were not covered because the negligence claims stemmed from the assault:

The exclusion, which states that it “is subject to the terms contained in the General Liability Coverage,” provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, . . . this policy excludes any and all claims arising out of any assault, battery, fight, altercation, misconduct or other similar incident,” including claims of negligent hiring and supervision. * * *

Here … Supreme Court properly found that the terms of the exclusion controlled over those in the general liability coverage, as “language such as a ‘notwithstanding’ provision ‘controls over any contrary language’ in a contract” … .

Christian asserts that the assault and battery exclusion does not apply because the underlying action alleges acts of negligence. We disagree. “[I]f no cause of action would exist but for the assault, the claim is based on assault and the exclusion applies” and the fact that an insured might be liable under a theory of negligence does not change this … . Graytwig Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03229, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/ASSAULT (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/EXCLUSIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

, , ,

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED.

In a dispute between real estate brokers over plaintiff’s entitlement to a percentage of a commission, the Second Department determined defendants’ counterclaims for abuse of process, prima facie tort, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and attorney’s fees were properly dismissed. The (unsuccessful) claim for attorney’s fees was based upon language in a real estate policy and procedure manual the language of which was deemed too vague to supplant the general rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees. With regard to the abuse of process and attorney’s fees claims, the court explained:

“The three essential elements of the tort of abuse of process are (1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective'” … . “[T]he gist of the tort is the improper use of process after it is issued’ by an unlawful interference with one’s person or property'”… . Here, the gravamen of the first counterclaim was that the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit with the intent to harm the defendants, knowing that the brokerage community would find out about the lawsuit, which would damage the defendants’ ability to do business in that community. However, “the institution of a civil action by summons and complaint is not legally considered process capable of being abused” … . Moreover, there was no allegation that the plaintiff improperly used process after it was issued. Furthermore, “a malicious motive alone does not give rise to a cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process” … . * * *

In the fourth counterclaim the defendants sought to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action pursuant to a provision in their “Policy & Procedure Manual,” which states, inter alia, that “[i]f a dispute arises due to a commission and a legal action is commenced as a result thereof, the costs of the legal action will be deducted from the fee collected,” and “[i]f [a] suit is a result of an agent’s action, he/she will be responsible for payment of damages incurred as a result.” Since “a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney’s fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees, the court should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise” … . Here, the provision relied upon by the defendants is vague, and a promise by the plaintiff to indemnify the defendants for attorneys’ fees incurred in litigation between them cannot be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire manual. Goldman v Citicore I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03156, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

REAL ESTATE (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/INTENTIONAL TORTS (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/COMMISSIONS (REAL ESTATE, ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)

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