You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER.

In an action stemming from the withholding of payment to plaintiff subcontractor, the Second Department determined the breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed, but noted that a conversion action cannot be based upon a breach of contract, and an unjust enrichment cause of action cannot coexist with a breach of contract cause of action.  Supreme Court had dismissed the breach of contract cause of action, finding the defendant had a legal right to withhold payment under Labor Law 220 because complaints had been lodged for failure to pay the prevailing wage for this school construction project. But since the Comptroller had not yet ruled on the Labor Law 220 complaints, Supreme Court should not have based its dismissal on them by making its own finding:

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . While a court is “permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)” … , “where the motion is not converted to one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the [third-party plaintiff] has a cause of action, not whether [it] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [third-party plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it . . . dismissal should not eventuate'” … . A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may appropriately be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . * * *

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party cause of action alleging breach of contract on the ground that the third-party defendants had a legal right to withhold payment pursuant to Labor Law §§ 220 and 220-b. Based upon the record before us, there is no indication that the Comptroller has rendered a final determination regarding the alleged Labor Law § 220 violation. As such, the court, in effect, determined the prevailing wage issue, which is within the exclusive province of the Comptroller, prior to a determination by the Comptroller … . Thus, the evidentiary material submitted by the third-party defendants, which demonstrated that payment to AGC under the subject contracts was withheld pending the Comptroller’s determination, failed to establish that any fact alleged in support of the third-party breach of contract cause of action was undisputedly not a fact, and failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law to that cause of action. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v Astoria Gen. Contr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08047, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER)

, , ,

ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED (NOT THE CASE HERE).

The Second Department, finding that a cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of contract does not exist, explained the elements of aiding and abetting fraud. The court further found that the arbitration clause was not invalidated by the allegations of fraud in the inducement:

There is no cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of contract … . To recover for aiding and abetting fraud, the plaintiff must plead “the existence of an underlying fraud, knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud” … . “Substantial assistance” requires an affirmative act on the defendant’s part … . “[T]he mere inaction of an alleged aider or abettor constitutes substantial assistance only if the defendant owes a fiduciary duty directly to the plaintiff” … . * * *

The plaintiffs contend that the arbitration agreement is invalid because it was fraudulently induced. However, a broad arbitration provision is separable from the substantive provisions of a contract such that the agreement to arbitrate is valid even if the substantive provisions of the contract were induced by fraud … . “The issue of fraud in the inducement affects the validity of the arbitration clause only when the fraud relates to the arbitration provision itself, or was part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire contract'” … . “To demonstrate that fraud permeated the entire contract, it must be established that the agreement was not the result of an arm’s length negotiation, or the arbitration clause was inserted into the contract to accomplish a fraudulent scheme” … . Markowits v Friedman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07932, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

FRAUD (ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)/ARBITRATION (WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined the contract between plaintiff contractor and property-owner defendant was a design specification contract, as opposed to a performance specification contract. Therefore plaintiff contractor could not be held responsible for defects in materials, methods or design, which were the responsibility of the property owner:

In contrast to a performance specification contract, which affords a contractor the freedom to choose the materials and methods employed to achieve a specified result, a design specification contract requires a contractor to use the materials, methods and design dictated by the owner, without bearing any “responsibility if the design proves inadequate to achieve the intended result” … . In other words, when there is a design specification contract, a contractor follows the architectural plans and specifications provided by an owner, and the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in such plans and specifications or be prevented from recovering contractually-agreed upon payments for work completed in compliance with them … . Whether a construction contract is one of performance or design specification turns on the language of the contract as a whole, with consideration given to factors such as “the nature and degree of the contractor’s involvement in the specification process, and the degree to which the contractor is allowed to exercise discretion in carrying out its performance” … . CGM Constr., Inc. v Sydor, 2016 NY Slip Op 07895, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONTRACT (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONTRACT (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)

INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.

The First Department determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment relieving them of liability for the costs of a tax audit should have been granted. In a stock purchase agreement (SPA) plaintiffs agreed to indemnify Dearborn for costs associated with tax audits relating to any time up until the closing date. Dearborn had been sold by plaintiffs to a third party. A tax audit of Dearborn was conducted resulting in a $2.2 million tax assessment. In violation of the SPA, Dearborn did not notify plaintiffs of the tax audit. The SPA provided that the failure to notify would be actionable only to the extent plaintiffs were prejudiced by it. The issue before the First Department was whether the prejudice must be economic loss, or whether the inability to control the defense of the tax audit was sufficient. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held the deprivation of the right to control the defense of the audit was sufficient:

What we must determine, therefore, is the standard that plaintiffs must meet to demonstrate that the untimely notice of the second audit that they received caused them actual prejudice, and whether, on this record, that standard has been met. We agree with plaintiffs that, contrary to the view of Supreme Court and the position of defendants, in view of their “sole right” under the SPA to “control” the defense of the second audit (expressly including the rights to choose counsel and to settle), plaintiffs need not establish “tangible economic injury” to show that they have been actually prejudiced by the late notice … . Rather, to establish actual prejudice due to late notice, it suffices for an indemnitor afforded the right to control the defense of an idemnifiable claim to show that it was deprived of its right to exercise that right for a material portion of the proceedings on the claim. Conergics Corp. v Dearborn Mid-West Conveyor Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 07750, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT IS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)/INDEMNIFICATION (INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT)

,

CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED.

The Second Department determined a shortened statute of limitations agreed to in a stock purchase contract was properly enforced. Plaintiff discovered that defendant had not paid the full purchase price for the stock, and brought a breach of contract action after the contractual statute of limitations had expired:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . To be enforceable, such provision must be clear and unambiguous … . “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” … . ” Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the plain language of the provision limiting the time period to bring an “action based on any warranty, covenant or representation contained in this Agreement” is clear and unambiguous, and applies to the defendant’s covenant to pay … . This interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the contract and basic principles of contract construction that an interpretation which renders language in the contract superfluous cannot be supported … . Batales v Friedman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07615, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised an issue of fact whether defendant contractor owed a duty to plaintiff because its flooring work created an unreasonable risk of harm to others. However Supreme Court erred in not finding the defect trivial as a matter of law:

Here, the record establishes that the bullnose tile was slightly less than one-half of an inch in height and was not the same color as the tile floor. * * * …”[T]he test established by the case law in New York is not whether a defect is capable of catching a pedestrian’s shoe. … [T]he relevant questions are whether the defect was difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” … . Upon our review of the photos of the alleged defect and in view of the less than ½-inch height of the bullnose tile and the circumstances surrounding decedent’s accident … , we conclude that, although an accident occurred that is “traceable to the defect, there is no liability” because the alleged defect ” is so slight that no careful or prudent [person] would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence’ ” under the circumstances present here … . Stein v Sarkisian Bros., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07501, 4th Dept 11-10-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)

AMBIGUOUS TERMS IN CONTRACT NOT CLARIFIED BY PAROL EVIDENCE, TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the applicable provisions of a construction contract were ambiguous and defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. The plaintiff installed a sidewalk shed around a school building to facilitate its roof work. A dispute arose whether the construction of the sidewalk shed was included in the contract, or whether it was extra work for which extra compensation was due:

A contractor may properly recover payment for extra work that is not contemplated by the terms of the original agreement, and which is performed at the direction of the defendant … . However, a contractor may not recover for any alleged extra work that was actually covered by the terms of the original contract … . * * *

… [T]he contract provision requiring the plaintiff to install sidewalk shedding “to provide proper protection to the school population, workers and pedestrians” is ambiguous with respect to whether it obligated the plaintiff to install a sidewalk shed around the existing building. Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the provision in the contract providing that the plaintiff must install “sidewalk sheds and/or fences . . . in the most conservative manner” is also ambiguous as to whether the plaintiff was required to install a sidewalk shed around the existing building and is subject to different interpretations. The parol evidence submitted by the plaintiff does not conclusively resolve this ambiguity. Thus, in light of these ambiguities as to whether the contract required the plaintiff to perform the work in question, there are triable issues of fact which preclude a grant of summary judgment to either party… . Arnell Constr. Corp. v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 07282, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (AMBIGUOUS TERMS IN CONTRACT NOT CLARIFIED BY PAROL EVIDENCE, TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION WAS NOT SET IN THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND AGREED TO, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AS A MERE AGREEMENT TO AGREE; THE AMOUNT COULD BE DETERMINED BY EXTRINSIC INFORMATION.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined a material term of a contract could be adequately fleshed out by extrinsic evidence. Therefore the contract should not have been invalidated as a mere “agreement to agree.” Defendant was hired as a consultant by plaintiff, the parent company of a number of banks, to maximize income from overdrafts. Defendant’s fee was to be based on plaintiff’s income over a “baseline” amount to be established by defendant (and agreed to by plaintiff):

Supreme Court determined that, because the baseline was an indefinite material term, the agreement was unenforceable as a “mere agreement to agree” … . We do not agree. “[W]here it is clear from the language of an agreement that the parties intended to be bound and there exists an objective method for supplying a missing term, the court should endeavor to hold the parties to their bargain. Striking down a contract as indefinite and in essence meaningless is at best a last resort” … . If, “at the time of agreement the parties have manifested their intent to be bound, a price term may be sufficiently definite if the amount can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties; . . . for example, [the price term might] be . . . ascertained by reference to an extrinsic event” … . Here, the parties’ conduct evinced that they intended to be bound by the agreement and, in our view, the baseline could be ascertained with reference to an extrinsic event, that is, defendant’s calculation derived from the existing historical data … . Accordingly, we find that the agreement was enforceable. Tompkins Fin. Corp. v John M. Floyd & Assoc., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07252, 3rd Dept 11-3-16

CONTRACT LAW (THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION WAS NOT SET IN THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND AGREED TO LATER, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AS A MERE AGREEMENT TO AGREE; THE AMOUNT COULD BE DETERMINED BY EXTRINSIC INFORMATION)

,

LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND; CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE SATISFIED THE STATUTE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the requirements of section 5 of the Lien Law, which concerns private development on public land, was satisfied by a contractual guarantee, as opposed to the posting of a bond. The nearly $170,000,000 construction project ultimately collapsed. The opinion, which addresses the substance of the contracts, piercing the corporate veil, as well as a motion to disqualify a law firm on conflict grounds, is too complex to summarize here. With respect to the Lien Law issue, the court wrote:

The crux of plaintiff’s position is that the guarantee provided in this case does not comply with the law because it is not equivalent to a bond or “other form of undertaking” under the statute.

A statute, however, is to be construed so as to give meaning to each word … . Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “undertaking” first as “[a] promise, pledge, or engagement,” and second as “[a] bail bond” … . Similarly, the CPLR defines “Undertaking” first as “[a]ny obligation, whether or not the principal is a party thereto, which contains a covenant by a surety to pay the required amount, as specified therein, if any required condition . . . is not fulfilled” … . Hence, an “undertaking,” as distinct from a “bond,” is simply a “formal promise [or] guarantee” … .

That the legislature intended the term “undertaking” in Lien Law § 5 to mean a “guarantee” is strongly supported by the statute’s legislative history, which indicates that the Governor vetoed an earlier version of the 2004 amendment that added the above quoted language because the earlier version would have required the posting of a bond in every instance, disallowing “other forms of security designed to guarantee payment” … . The senate sponsor of the amendment clarified that the phrase “or some other form of undertaking” was added to meet the Governor’s concerns by providing “an alternative to posting a bond” … . Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v Atlantic Yards B2 Owner, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06903, 1st Dept 10-20-16

LIEN LAW (LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND; CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE SATISFIED THE STATUTE)/BONDS (CONSTRUCTION) (LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND; CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE SATISFIED THE STATUTE)/GUARANTEE (LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND; CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE SATISFIED THE STATUTE)/CONTRACT LAW (LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND; CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE SATISFIED THE STATUTE)

,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.

The Second Department determined the company (Mainco) under contract with the Bronx Center (a nursing home) to maintain an elevator could be liable to plaintiff, who was injured when the elevator fell. The court explained the analytical criteria for liability in tort to third parties stemming from a contract:

Mainco failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it did not have a duty to the plaintiff. ” An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . Further, “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 . . . where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty” of safe maintenance … .

Here, the maintenance agreement between Mainco and Bronx Center required Mainco to periodically “inspect” the elevator and to “perform the New York City Local Law #10 mandated annual inspection.” The evidence demonstrated that, if there were any problems with the elevator, Bronx Center called Mainco, and Mainco inspected the elevator to determine and report on the cause of the problem. The evidence further indicated that if the cause of the problem was not a repair covered by the maintenance contract, Mainco issued a repair proposal, and would perform the repair upon acceptance of its proposal. Under these circumstances, Mainco failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it did not assume a duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of that duty. Fajardo v Mainco El. & Elec. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06678, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT, ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)

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