You are here: / 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.

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 While an auction can be conditional, meaning property can be withdrawn after the close of bidding, it will not be deemed conditional absent explicit terms … .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)

,

COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the terms of the employee handbook, signed by the plaintiff, precluded counterclaims alleging an oral promise to pay an annual bonus:

The operative employee handbook stating, inter alia, that bonuses were paid at the sole discretion of plaintiff, and the acknowledgment of the handbook’s terms signed by defendant, conclusively refute the counterclaims based on the alleged oral promise to pay an annual nondiscretionary bonus … .

Nor was the discretionary bonus policy modified by the alleged oral agreement. As defendant’s acknowledgment makes clear, “[N]o supervisor, manager or other representative of [plaintiff] has the authority to make any verbal promises, commitments, or statements of any kind regarding the Company’s policies, procedures, or any other issues that are legally binding on the Company.”

The quasi-contractual counterclaims based on the alleged agreement are likewise precluded by the discretionary bonus policy … .

The alleged oral promise to pay acquisition proceeds, however, was not established to be a “bonus” within the scope of the discretionary bonus policy. The complaint alleges that the promised payment was not performance-based, but was an inducement to keep defendant from quitting … . The breach of contract counterclaim based on this alleged promise is nonetheless barred because the promise was not in writing, as required by the broad language of the acknowledgment … .

The quasi-contractual counterclaims, to the extent predicated on an alleged agreement to pay acquisition proceeds, likewise fail. Such claims require an element of reasonable reliance on a promise, a reasonable expectation of compensation, or an inequity, all of which are negated where, as here, the plaintiff receives adequate compensation and signed a written acknowledgment confirming the fact that no representative of plaintiff had authority to make legally binding verbal promises … . Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc. v Frischer, 2016 NY Slip Op 08100, 1st Dept 12-1-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)/BONUSES (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING ENTITLEMENT TO A NONDISCRETIONARY BONUS PRECLUDED BY TERMS OF EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK)

, ,

BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendants-sellers in this action to recover the deposit for a home purchase. The court found the buyer did not comply with the mortgage contingency provisions of the purchase agreement and misled the sellers, not informing them of the rejection of his mortgage applications:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in determining that the buyer had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The correspondence submitted by the buyer on renewal demonstrated, among other things, that the seller agreed to the buyer’s initial request to extend the commitment date but refused to consider his request for a second extension of the commitment date until the buyer provided copies of his loan applications and declinations. Additionally, this new evidence demonstrated that when the buyer sought an extension of the commitment date, he did not advise the seller of the fact that he had already been rejected by more than one lender. Contrary to the buyer’s contention, the evidence demonstrated that the buyer failed to comply with several provisions of the mortgage contingency clause in the contract … , and acted in bad faith in obtaining an extension of the commitment date by misleading the seller about the fact that multiple lenders rejected his mortgage loan applications based on his “delinquent credit obligations” and the lenders’ inability to verify his income. * * *

This Court has the authority to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to issues that were the subject of the motion before the Supreme Court … . Under the unique and compelling circumstances of this case, and given the wealth of evidence which supports judgment in favor of the defendants, we search the record and award summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint … . Kweku v Thomas, 2016 NY Slip Op 08051, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

REAL ESTATE (BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS)/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS)/APPEALS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS)

,

EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED.

The Second Department determined defendant insurer properly rescinded the plaintiffs’ fire insurance policy based upon the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation the residence would be owner-occupied. The court noted that a misrepresentation can be innocently made and still trigger rescission. The court also found that the broker had no obligation to make sure the insurance application was properly filled out by the plaintiffs:

Here, [the insurer] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises would be owner occupied and that it would not have issued the subject policy if the application had disclosed that the subject premises would not be owner occupied … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs admit that, at the time the application was completed, they did not intend to occupy the premises. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, although the application was completed prior to closing and prior to the inception of the policy, the representation therein that the premises was an owner-occupied primary residence established, in effect, a material misrepresentation of a then existing fact that the premises would be owner occupied, which was sufficient for rescission under Insurance Law § 3105 … . Joseph v Interboro Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 08050, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED)/MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (INSURANCE POLICY, EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED)

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