You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined a broad choice of law provision in a contract required the application of New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202). Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the law of the Province of Ontario Canada. The statute of limitations for breach of contract under Ontario law is two years. New York’s statute of limitations is six years. Because, under the facts, New York’s borrowing statute applies and therefore the Ontario statute of limitations controls, the action is untimely:

The borrowing statute is itself a part of New York’s procedural law and is a statute of limitations in its own right, existing as a separate procedural rule within the rules of our domestic civil practice, addressing limitations of time … . Thus, applying the borrowing statute is perfectly consistent with a broad choice-of-law contract clause that requires New York procedural rules to apply to the parties’ disputes. 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06671, 1st Dept 10-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CONTRACT LAW (CHOICE OF LAW, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CORPORATION LAW (CHOICE OF LAW CONTRACTUAL PROVISION, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/BORROWING STATUTE (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACT, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)

, ,

PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL; FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR.

Although the facts were not explained, the Second Department determined proof of “specific,” as opposed to “general,” cleaning practices, “under the circumstances,” was sufficient to meet defendant’s burden demonstrating the absence of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff to fall (not specified in the decision). In addition, because plaintiff did not allege any of the “Espinal” exceptions, proof the plaintiff was not a party to the building owner’s contract with the cleaning contractor was sufficient to warrant summary judgment in favor of the contractor:

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . Although submission of evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices is generally insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, specific evidence as to cleaning practices may be adequate, depending on the circumstances of the case … .

Here, the owner satisfied its prima facie burden through submission of the deposition testimony of an employee of the contractor and the building concierge employed by the owner. The testimony of the building concierge, and the testimony of the contractor’s employee regarding the frequency of the employee’s inspections of the area where the injured plaintiff fell, established, prima facie, that the owner did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Mavis v Rexcorp Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06476, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR)

, , ,

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action as untimely was properly denied. The facts, which concern the sale of interests in a Russian oil company, are too complex to summarize here. The court held that the complaint alleged a breach of a 2001 joint venture investment agreement based upon an alleged failure to pay plaintiff a portion of sale proceeds in 2013, making the 2014 lawsuit timely:

 

… [T]he motion court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of their joint venture agreement and the 2001 Agreement, and for breach of defendants’ fiduciary duty. It held that although there was no written investment agreement signed by both defendants … plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the existence of a valid oral agreement by alleging that the parties agreed to the central terms of the unsigned investment agreement. It further held that the oral agreement was not void under the statute of frauds because it was capable of being performed within one year, and because the statute of frauds is generally inapplicable to joint ventures. It also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of joint venture claims were time barred, reasoning that the claimed breach of the 2001 Agreement was defendants’ failure to pay plaintiff his percentage share of the 2013 … sale proceeds. * * *

This action was commenced within both limitations periods, because defendants “had a recurring obligation to pay plaintiff his . . . share of the profits generated by” the joint venture. … . A new claim accrued when the obligation to do so was allegedly breached in 2013. Lebedev v Blavatnik, 2016 NY Slip Op 06463, 1st Dept 10-4-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CORPORATION LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/JOINT VENTURES (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM “INSURANCE” IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the word “insurance” in a noncompete agreement was susceptible of two meanings, thereby precluding summary judgment. Defendant signed a noncompete agreement which prohibited the “brokering or placement of insurance.” After plaintiff started a new job during the time-period covered by the noncompete agreement with his previous employer, he brokered two “surety bonds” for two companies which had been clients of his former employer. Plaintiff argued the term “insurance” encompassed “surety bonds.” Defendants argued the term “insurance” did not encompass “surety bonds:”

… [T]the evidence produced by each side does not show that the interpretation urged by each is inevitable; rather, it shows that the language of the letter agreement is “on its face . . . reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . Accordingly, the motion court properly denied the motions for summary judgment. Frenkel Benefits, LLC v Mallory, 2016 NY Slip Op 06109, 1st Dept 9-21-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/SURETY BONDS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)

,

AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined an action by a subcontractor seeking payment under a payment bond for environmental clean-up work was time-barred. Plaintiff subcontractor had submitted invoices to the contractor which were not paid. Whether the action on the payment bond was time-barred depended upon whether an amendment to State Finance Law 137 applied retroactively. The court found the amendment did not apply retroactively and explained the analytical criteria:

” In determining whether statutory enactments should be given retroactive effect, there are two axioms of statutory interpretation'”  … . ” Amendments are presumed to have prospective application unless the Legislature’s preference for retroactivity is explicitly stated or clearly indicated. However, remedial legislation should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose'” … . ” These axioms are helpful guideposts, but the reach of the statute ultimately becomes a matter of judgment made upon review of the legislative goal'” … .

Here, the Legislature did not explicitly state or clearly indicate, either in the amendment itself or in the legislative materials, that the 2011 amendment should be applied retroactively … . Thus, “we presume at the outset that the amendment was to have prospective application” … . Additionally, the 2011 amendment did not create a new right or a new class of individuals who could assert a cause of action under a payment bond. Instead, the amendment was simply intended to clarify the limitations period for bringing a payment bond claim. Given these circumstances, the amendment cannot be characterized as remedial, and need not be applied retroactively to achieve its purpose … . Clean Earth of N. Jersey, Inc. v Northcoast Maintenance Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06056, 2nd Dept 9-21-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (PAYMENT BOND,AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (PAYMENT BOND, AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/PAYMENT BOND (STATE FINANCE LAW, AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/STATE FINANCE LAW (PAYMENT BOND, AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/STATUTES (STATE FINANCE LAW, AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED

CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with extensive analysis of the “negotiation or consummation of a business opportunity” aspect of the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10)), determined certain aspects of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and quantum meruit causes of actions properly survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged he supplied information and know-how which led to defendants’ creation and operation of a highly successful website which facilitates finding and renting apartments. The aspects of plaintiff’s causes of action which stemmed from “negotiating or consummating the business opportunity” were barred by the statute of frauds. But the aspects related to plaintiff’s assistance in the success of the on-going business were not barred by the statute of frauds. The opinion includes a detailed discussion of the limits of the “writing” requirement for any agreement to “negotiate or consummate a business opportunity:”

In the present case, the amended complaint contains allegations that, if accepted by the trier of fact, demonstrate that plaintiff’s role consisted of more than functioning as an intermediary that assisted in the negotiation or consummation of the business opportunity. Rather, [plaintiff] allegedly rendered a wide variety of services, which presumably took place after the company came to fruition, making these services related to a purpose other than “assisting in the negotiation or consummation” of a business opportunity, so as to escape the strictures of General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10). Dorfman v Reffkin, 2016 NY Slip Op 06116, 1st Dept 9-21-16

CONTRACT LAW (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/QUANTUM MERUIT (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)

,

UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF POLICY REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED; THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT DIRECTLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PRECLUDED COVERAGE, DESPITE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Justice Kahn, determined that, under the unambiguous terms of the policy, the absence of a written contract directly with the additional insured precluded coverage for the additional insured, despite a written agreement with a third party to provide coverage for the additional insured. The lawsuit stemmed from damage to surrounding buildings during construction:

The principal issue in this appeal is the interpretation of the additional insurance endorsement in the policy which provides that an additional insured is “any person or organization with whom you [the insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.” Trial courts have arrived at conflicting interpretations of a similarly worded additional insured clause as to whether coverage is extended not only to those “with whom” the insured agreed, but also to those “for whom” the insured agreed to provide coverage … . We hold that the subject additional insured clause covers only those that have a written contracts directly with the named insured. * * *

… [W]e find that the language in the “Additional Insured-By Written Contract” clause of the … policy clearly and unambiguously requires that the named insured execute a contract with the party seeking coverage as an additional insured. Since there is no dispute that [the insured] did not enter into a written contract with the JV (joint venture), [the insured’s] agreement in its contract with DASNY (Dormitory Authority of the City of New York) to procure coverage for the JV is insufficient to afford the JV coverage as an additional insured under the … policy. Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06052, 1st Dept 9-15-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF POLICY REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED; THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT DIRECTLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PRECLUDED COVERAGE, DESPITE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED)/CONTRACT LAW (UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF POLICY REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED; THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT DIRECTLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PRECLUDED COVERAGE, DESPITE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED)/ADDITIONAL INSURED (UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF POLICY REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED; THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT DIRECTLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PRECLUDED COVERAGE, DESPITE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED)

,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined the terms of the lease negated the claimed violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs leased defendants’ property to operate a car dealership. After learning that a local law prohibited parking cars without license plates on the property, the plaintiffs asked to be released from the lease. The landlord refused. The terms of the lease specifically stated (1) it was subject to any local law restrictions and (2) it made no representations the property was suitable to plaintiffs’ intended business:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached when a party acts in a manner that would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits of their agreement … . The implied covenant includes any promises which a reasonable promisee would be justified in understanding were included … . However, no obligation may be implied that would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship … . Here, a finding that the defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing would necessarily contradict explicit and unambiguous terms of the lease agreements and create additional obligations not contained in them. Specifically, the lease agreements, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, provided that the written agreements superseded all “representations and understandings, written, oral or otherwise, between or among the parties with respect to the matters contained herein.” Additionally, the specific provisions in the lease agreements relating to parking were made subject to “any restrictions of local law, zoning or ordinance.” Finally, the lease agreements specifically provided that the landlord made no representation concerning the suitability of the premises for the plaintiffs’ intended business. Imposing a duty on the landlord to disclose zoning or local law restrictions would render those provisions ineffective … . These express and specific provisions in the lease itself conclusively establish a defense to causes of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . 1357 Tarrytown Rd. Auto, LLC v Granite Props., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05981, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)/CONTRACT (LEASES, LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (LEASES, LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff’s signing of a quitclaim deed was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Plaintiff, who believed he no longer owned the land, signed the deed in return for $5000. The property was worth $1,000,000:

No one procedural factor can be relied upon to support or discount a claim of procedural unconscionability. Such claims are most often fact sensitive and dependent upon the particular circumstances surrounding a transaction, which, at the very least, mandate the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing … . Certainly, the factual allegations … raise material issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was afforded a “meaningful choice” in his decision to execute the quitclaim deed and whether the terms of the agreement are “unreasonably favorable” to [defendants]. These issues cannot be resolved by summary judgment.

With respect to the element of substantive unconscionability, we also find that there are material issues of fact. In order to determine if the agreement is substantively unconscionable, there must be an “analysis of the substance of the bargain to determine whether the terms were unreasonably favorable to the party against whom unconscionability is urged” … . …[D]espite the fact that plaintiff believed he no longer owned the property, there is nothing in this record to indicate that he was ever divested of title by either an in rem proceeding or direct sale … . Green v 119 W. 138th St. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05955, 1st Dept 9-8-16

 

REAL PROPERTY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED)/QUITCLAIM DEED (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED)/UNCONSCIONABILITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED)

,

SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.

In a proceeding related to Matter of Frank G… summarized above, the Second Department noted that the surrogacy contract did not deprive the mother of the child (Renee P.-F.) of her parental rights:

Renee P.-F.’s parental rights were not terminated by virtue of her entering into a surrogacy contract. Surrogate parenting contracts have been declared contrary to the public policy, and are void and unenforceable (see Domestic Relations Law § 122). Moreover, Domestic Relations Law § 124(1) expressly states that “the court shall not consider the birth mother’s participation in a surrogate parenting contract as adverse to her parental rights, status, or obligations.” Matter of Giavonna F. P.-G. (Frank G.–Renee P.-F.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05948, 2nd Dept 9-8-16

FAMILY LAW (SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/SURROGACY CONTRACT (FAMILY LAW, SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/PARENTAL RIGHTS (SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)

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