You are here: / Contract Law
,

RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, ruled on the timeliness of claims that defendant, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, had breached representations and warranties regarding the quality of mortgages underlying residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). The court determined the claims were timely with regard to defective mortgages discovered by the defendant itself, despite the absence of notices of breach. But the claims were not timely with respect to the defective mortgages discovered by the plaintiff but for which no timely notices of breach were provided:

The issues before us are related to the contractual requirement and sufficiency of notices of breach (breach notice). We consider whether a breach notice is required when the underlying contract claim is based upon a defendant’s independent discovery or knowledge of the nonconforming mortgages. We also consider whether an otherwise late breach notice can relate back in time to the commencement of the underlying action in order to avoid dismissal. … [W]e hold that the breach of contract claims based upon defendant’s alleged independent discovery or likely knowledge of nonconforming mortgage loans do not require breach notices to be sent before an action may be brought. We further hold that the doctrine of relation back does not save claims that do require that a breach notice be sent as a precondition to bringing an action. U.S. Bank N.A. v GreenPoint Mtge. Funding, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08968, 1st Dept 12-29-16

SECURITIES (RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)/CONTRACT LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)

, ,

CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, CONTRACT LAW.

The Third Department determined defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied as premature. Plaintiff was seeking reformation of the insurance contract to add plaintiff as an insured. Plaintiff held a mortgage on the insured property when the property was destroyed by fire:

Erie’s [the insurance company’s] motion for summary judgment should have been denied as premature. “[A] summary judgment motion is properly denied as premature when the nonmoving party has not been given reasonable time and opportunity to conduct disclosure relative to pertinent evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant or a codefendant” … . As is relevant to plaintiff’s claim, a party seeking reformation of a contract must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, either that the writing at issue was executed under mutual mistake or that there was a fraudulently induced unilateral mistake … .

The importance of documents and depositions that plaintiff sought but had not been provided is readily apparent. The premise of plaintiff’s cause of action is that, in executing the relevant insurance policy, the corporation and Erie both intended to include plaintiff as a loss payee but that, by mutual mistake, he was omitted. Erie had exclusive knowledge of its understanding of the intended coverage and any intended loss payees at the time of the execution of the relevant insurance policy. Moreover, it is likely to be in exclusive possession of any collateral documents memorializing the intended scope of the relevant insurance policy. Further, plaintiff’s contention that Erie has exclusive possession of employees and materials that could shed light on its intent as to the insurance policy is patently reasonable and not merely speculation … . Imrie v Ratto, 2016 NY Slip Op 08907, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED)/INSURANCE LAW (REFORMATION OF POLICY, CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED)/CONTRACT (REFORMATION, CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED)/REFORMATION (INSURANCE POLICY, CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED)

,

DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined defendant Arrow Security, a company under contract with defendant theater, Paramount, to provide security for patrons, was not entitled to a dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff, an employee of Paramount, alleged he was instructed by Arrow to restrain a person, John Doe, who was in the rear alley of the theater premises. Plaintiff alleged he was beaten and injured by John Doe. The contract between Arrow and Paramount specifically stated the contract did not create a duty owed to third parties. However, the court concluded the complaint stated a claim for common-law negligence because it was alleged Arrow directed plaintiff to restrain John Doe:

… Arrow failed to conclusively establish that it owed no common-law duty to the plaintiff. To the contrary, the allegations in the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff … , set forth a cognizable legal theory under which Arrow could be found to have assumed a duty of care to the plaintiff by calling for and instructing him to investigate, restrain, and/or detain the intoxicated John Doe … . A duty of care may be assumed where a “defendant’s conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than plaintiff would have been in had defendant done nothing” … , or where a defendant’s conduct “enhanced the risk that plaintiff faced, created a new risk or induced plaintiff to forego some opportunity to avoid risk” … . Garda v Paramount Theatre, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08841, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM (DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)

FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff (Stonehill) was entitled to summary judgment against defendant Bank of the West (BOTW) in this breach of contract action.  BOTW offered for sale a syndicated loan at auction. Plaintiff bid on the loan and BOTW accepted the bid. The acceptance e-mail indicated it was “subject to” an executed agreement and a 10% deposit. BOTW argued that the “subject to” conditions were not met and a contract was never formed. The Court of Appeals disagreed noting a difference between conditions precedent to performance and conditions prefatory to the formation of a binding agreement:

In determining whether the parties intended to enter a contract, and the nature of the contract’s material terms, we look to the “objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds” … . “[D]isproportionate emphasis is not to be put on any single act, phrase or other expression, but, instead on the totality of all of these, given the attendant circumstances, the situation of the parties, and the objectives they were striving to attain” … . With respect to auctions, the general rule is that a seller’s acceptance of an auction bid forms a binding contract, unless the bid is contingent on future conduct … . While an auction can be conditional, meaning property can be withdrawn after the close of bidding, it will not be deemed conditional absent explicit terms … . * * *

… [The acceptance] email stated that closure of the transaction required execution of a signed document and Stonehill’s tender of the 10% deposit. That, however, is not the same as a clear expression that the parties were not bound to consummate the sale and that BOTW could withdraw at any time, for any reason. Nor did BOTW make known its desire for an unrestricted exit from the deal before accepting Stonehill’s bid or anytime before it withdrew from the transaction. … There is a difference between conditions precedent to performance and those prefatory to the formation of a binding agreement. Stonehill Capital Mgt., LLC v Bank of the W., 2016 NY Slip Op 08481, CtApp 12-20-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE)/AUCTIONS (CONTRACT LAW, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE)/BID AND ACCEPTANCE (AUCTIONS, CONTRACT LAW, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE)

,

HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD.

The Third Department determined a hearing should have been held on a birth parent’s petition to enforce a postadoption agreement which allowed visitation by the parent:

Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 112-b (4), birth parents and adoptive parents may enter into a legally enforceable agreement regarding postadoption contact that may thereafter be enforced by filing a petition in Family Court … . Enforcement of a postadoption contact agreement, however, “will only be ordered if it is determined to be in the child’s best interests” … , and “[a]n evidentiary hearing is generally necessary to determine what is in the best interests of the child” … .

Here, while there were three appearances in Family Court on the petition at which the interested parties made factual representations, primarily through counsel, and legal arguments on the merits of the petition, no testimony was taken and no documentary evidence was admitted for consideration. The child’s adoptive parents and the attorney for the child opposed enforcement of the postadoption contact agreement and any contact between the child and petitioner based upon, among other factors, an alleged multi-year lapse in contact between petitioner and the child. The information submitted to the court raised factual questions regarding whether visits with petitioner would be in the child’s best interests or detrimental to those interests, necessitating an evidentiary hearing on that determinative issue … .

Further, the adoptive parents are persons whose interests may be adversely or inequitably affected by an order enforcing the postadoption contact agreement and, therefore, they should have been named as parties … . Matter of Lynn X. (Joseph W.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08415, 3rd Dept 12-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/ADOPTION (POSTADOPTION AGREEMENTS, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)

, ,

FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY BASED UPON POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE FACULTY HANDBOOK.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined faculty members sufficiently alleged the policies in the university’s faculty handbook had the force of contract and therefore a breach of contract action was viable:

A university’s academic and administrative decisions require professional judgment and may only be reviewed by way of an article 78 proceeding to ensure that such decisions are not violative of the institution’s own rules and neither arbitrary nor irrational … . However, “[i]f the claim involves a matter of contractual right it may, of course, be vindicated in an action [at] law” … .

For the purpose of surviving respondents’ cross motion to dismiss, petitioners, tenured faculty members of respondent New York University’s School of Medicine, have sufficiently alleged that the policies contained in respondent’s Faculty Handbook, which “form part of the essential employment understandings between a member of the Faculty and the University,” have the force of contract … . Further, for the purposes of surviving respondents’ cross motion to dismiss, petitioners have sufficiently alleged that they had a mutual understanding with respondent that tenured faculty members’ salaries may not be involuntarily reduced. Additionally, petitioners have sufficiently alleged that they reasonably relied on oral representations by respondents that their salaries would not be involuntarily reduced. Matter of Monaco v New York Univ. & N.Y. Univ. School of Medicine, 2016 NY Slip Op 08467, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY BASED UPON POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE FACULTY HANDBOOK)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY BASED UPON POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE FACULTY HANDBOOK)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (UNIVERSITIES, FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY BASED UPON POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE FACULTY HANDBOOK)

, ,

DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT].

The Second Department determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact when the terms of the lease created a duty on the part of the tenant (the City here) to maintain the abutting sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 imposes a nondelegable duty on a property owner to maintain and repair the sidewalk abutting its property, and specifically imposes liability upon certain property owners for injuries resulting from a violation of the code provision (see Administrative Code § 7-210…).

As a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party … . This is in accordance with the principle that “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized that there are exceptions to this general rule and that there are situations in which a party who enters into a contract may be said to have assumed a duty of care to third parties

The lease, inter alia, required the City, at its sole cost and expense, to take good care of the sidewalk, and “make all repairs thereto, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen.” It also provided that the former owner “shall have no responsibility and shall not be required to furnish any services, make any repairs or to perform any other maintenance work.” The plaintiffs’ submission of this evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City’s lease was comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance so as to entirely displace the former landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk … . Hsu v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08348, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES, DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/SLIP AND FALL (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/SIDEWALKS (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])

,

DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant insurer. The insurer, Republic, issued an uninsured-underinsured motorist policy to plaintiff’s employer. The policy applied to anyone who was an occupant of the vehicle at the time of injury. Here plaintiff (Bosco) had parked the car and gone across the street. As Bosco crossed the street to return he was struck by a car:

A person remains an occupant of a vehicle, even if that person is not in physical contact with the vehicle, “provided there has been no severance of connection with it, his [or her] departure is brief and he [or she] is still vehicle-oriented with the same vehicle” … . A connection to a vehicle will be severed “upon alighting therefrom to perform a chore which was not vehicle-oriented” … .

Moreover, there has to be “[m]ore than a mere intent to occupy a vehicle . . . to alter the status of pedestrian to one of occupying’ it” … . “[O]ne is [not] considered to be occupying a car if he is merely approaching it with intent to enter” … .

Here, Republic met its prima facie burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Bosco was not occupying the insured vehicle at the time of the accident … . The evidence Republic submitted demonstrated that Bosco left the insured vehicle and walked across the street to go to his office on the second floor of the building, to retrieve documents. Thus, Bosco’s leaving the insured vehicle was not a temporary break in his journey such that he remained in the immediate vicinity of the insured vehicle … . Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that the accident occurred as Bosco was walking back across the street, and that he had yet to reach the insured vehicle. The evidence therefore showed that Bosco had a mere intent to enter the insured vehicle and was not an occupant of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident … . J. Lawrence Constr. Corp. v Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 08349. 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY)/PEDESTRIANS (DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY)

,

WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT IN POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.

The First Department determined the “written agreement” requirement in an insurance policy did not mean a “signed agreement.” Here a purchase order required that the owner’s property manager, Newmark, be named as an additional insured. The purchase order did not have signature lines and was not signed. The court held the unsigned purchase order was a “written agreement” within the meaning of the policy language:

Defendant contends that Newmark and the owner are not additional insureds because the purchase order/agreement was unsigned. However, defendant’s policy merely requires a “written” contract, not a “signed” one. By contrast, in Cusumano v Extell Rock, LLC (86 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2011]), the policy said, “The following are also an insured when you … have agreed, in writing, in a contract or agreement that another person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy, provided the injury or damage occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement” … . As the motion court in Cusumano found, the insurer analogous to defendant in the case at bar “expressly included the word executed’ in[] its Policy, thereby requiring that any agreement by Regions to add a person/organization as an additional insured be memorialized in a signed contract” … . * * *

Under the circumstances, the court did not err by finding that the unsigned purchase order constituted a written contract for purposes of the additional insured endorsement … . Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v Endurance Am. Speciality Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 08313, 1st Dept 12-8-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT)/INSURANCE LAW (WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT)/ADDITIONAL INSUREDS (WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT)

, , , ,

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had adequately pled that the defendant law firm was equitably estopped from arguing an assignment, which was drawn up by the law firm, did not assign to plaintiff the right to bring a malpractice action against the law firm. The law firm had missed a deadline. Although the assignment could not be interpreted to include the malpractice claim, the equitable estoppel doctrine could be applied to prohibit the law firm from arguing the issue:

The motion court correctly found that the subject assignment, which merely transferred the assignor’s “entire right, title and interest in and to the [call] option contained in Paragraph 8 of” another contract, did not explicitly assign tort claims … . The assignment is not ambiguous; even if it were (and if we therefore considered parol evidence), an unexpressed understanding does not suffice … .

However, accepting plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion as true, we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that defendants should be equitably estopped from arguing that the assignment did not assign tort claims. Contrary to defendants’ contention, estoppel can be based on silence as well as conduct … . Under these circumstances, where defendants drafted the assignment at a time when it represented … plaintiff, and that interpreting the assignment to exclude tort claims would mean that neither the assignor nor plaintiff, the assignee, would be able to sue defendants for malpractice for failing to exercise the call option in a timely manner, we find that the “special circumstances” exception to the privity requirement applies … . Deep Woods Holdings LLC v Pryor Cashman LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 08156, 1st Dept 12-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CONTRACT LAW (ASSIGNMENT, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ASSIGNMENT (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)

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