You are here: / Contract Law
,

STIPULATION WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OLDEST CHILD WOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a stipulation which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce did not call for the reduction of child support upon emancipation of the older child. The dissent argued that, applying standard principles of contract interpretation, it was clear the parties intended emancipation of the older child would result in the reduction of child support, despite the absence of a formula for the reduction in the stipulation:

There is no evidence, other than plaintiff’s testimony, that the parties had agreed to a reduction in child support on account of any purported emancipation of the older child. Indeed, their agreement, freely entered into, does not allocate plaintiff’s child support obligation as between the children or provide a formula for a reduction in the event of one child’s emancipation … . “When child support has been ordered for more than one child, the emancipation of the oldest child does not automatically reduce the amount of support owed under an order of support for multiple children” … . Schulman v Miller, 2015 NY Slip Op 09603, 1st Dept, 12-29-15

FAMILY LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/STIPULATION, DIVORCE (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)

,

MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissent (opinion by Justice Mazzarelli), determined that a massive 750-foot tower crane destroyed during Hurricane Sandy was not included in the policy-definition of “Temporary Works” and was included in a policy-exclusion for “contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment.” Damage to the crane, therefore, was not covered:

The policy defines a temporary structure as something that is “incidental to the project.” Although the term incidental is not defined, “it is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract” … .

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as”[s]ubordinate to something of greater importance; having a minor role” (10th ed 2014]). The American Heritage Dictionary, defines incidental as “[o]f a minor, casual, or subordinate nature” (5th ed 2011]). The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as “being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence” (11th ed 2003).

Applying these definitions, the 750-foot tower crane is not a structure that is “incidental” to the project. Indeed, rather than ensuing by chance or minor consequence … the “[b]uilding was specifically designed to incorporate the Tower Crane during construction” and the crane’s design and erection involved an “in-depth process” that had to be approved by a structural engineer. Moreover, once it was integrated into the structure of the building, the custom designed tower crane, rather than serving a minor or subordinate role, was used to lift items such as concrete slabs, structural steel and equipment, was integral and indispensable, not incidental, to the construction of the 74-story high-rise, which could not have been built without it. Accordingly, the tower crane does not fall within the policy’s definition of Temporary Works. Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 09389, 1st Dept 12-22-15

INSURANCE LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE)/CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE IN POLICY)

,

A CONTRACTUAL NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES AN OTHERWISE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATE’S LAW.

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Rivera concurred), the Court of Appeals determined the New York choice of law provision in decedent's retirement and death benefit plans required the application of New York law, even though, under the facts, an otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision required the application of Colorado law.  Decedent was enrolled in both retirement and death benefit plans. He made his wife the beneficiary of the plans and his wife's father the contingent beneficiary. Decedent and his wife divorced and decedent died in Colorado. If the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision applied, the effect of the divorce would be determined by Colorado law (where decedent died). Under Colorado law, the divorce removed both decedent's wife and her father as beneficiaries of the plans. Under New York law only the wife was removed and her father remained.  The choice of law provision in the retirement and death benefit plans was deemed to supersede the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision (which would have required analysis under Colorado law):

… [W]e should apply the most reasonable interpretation of the contract language that effectuates the parties' intended and expressed choice of law … . To do otherwise — by applying New York's statutory conflict-of-laws principles, even if doing so results in the application of the substantive law of another state — would contravene the primary purpose of including a choice-of-law provision in a contract — namely, to avoid a conflict-of-laws analysis and its associated time and expense. Such an interpretation would also interfere with, and ignore, the parties' intent, contrary to the basic tenets of contract interpretation. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v Snow, 2015 NY Slip Op 09186, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISON)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACTUAL PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY PROVISION)/CONFLICT OF LAWS (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)

,

“BEST EVIDENCE RULE” CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NOT MET HERE.

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet the requirements of the best evidence rule and defendant’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted.  Defendant argued that plaintiff’s breach of contract action was time-barred because a pricing offer/customer agreement included a shortened statute of limitations (one year). However, defendant produced only unsigned documents together with an employee’s (Muscillo’s) affidavit saying the original signed document was likely lost. The Second Department explained why that evidence was not sufficient under the best evidence rule:

“The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven” … . “The rule serves mainly to protect against fraud, perjury and inaccuracies . . . which derive from faulty memory'” … . Under an exception to the best evidence rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . “Loss may be established upon a showing of a diligent search in the location where the document was last known to have been kept, and through the testimony of the person who last had custody of the original. Indeed, the more important the document to the resolution of the ultimate issue in the case, the stricter becomes the requirement of the evidentiary foundation establishing loss for the admission of secondary evidence” … .

Here, given the significance of the lost original Pricing Offer to the issue of whether the action was time-barred, Muscillo’s conclusory averments were insufficient to explain its unavailability … . The defendant did not submit an affidavit from the person who last had custody of the original 2010 Pricing Offer, or from a person with personal knowledge of the search for it.

Even if the defendant’s submissions were sufficient to establish the unavailability of the original Pricing Offer, Muscillo’s affidavit was insufficient secondary evidence that an original signed agreement ever existed. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v Kingston Oil Supply Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09059, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CONTRACT LAW (BEST EVIDENCE RULE, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/EVIDENCE (BEST EVIDENCE RULE, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/BEST EVIDENCE RULE (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AGREEMENT TO SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARTIAL PERFORMANCE TOOK ORAL AGREEMENT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether an oral agreement to extend a mining lease was enforceable because partial performance took the contract out of the statute of frauds. An amendment to extend the mining lease for 20 years was never executed. However, the agreement was mentioned in a 20-year sublease which was subsequently entered:

Defendants’ statute of frauds argument is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703, which, as relevant here, provides that an interest in real property can be created or conveyed only by a signed writing. While plaintiff concedes that a signed copy of the amendment does not exist, he contends that the statute of frauds is inapplicable, as the parties’ course of conduct constitutes partial performance of an oral contract to extend the term of the lease (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]…). “[P]artial performance of an alleged oral contract will be deemed sufficient to take such contract out of the [s]tatute of [f]rauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts constituting partial performance are ‘unequivocally referable’ to said contract” … .

Here, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds applies. Evidence of such performance can be found in the parties’ mutual decision to execute the 20-year sublease agreement, which explicitly referred to the amendment and acknowledged that plaintiff and [defendant] were parties to it. Indeed, if the parties did not have an understanding that the mining lease was to be extended to 20 years, then [defendant sublessee’s] willingness to enter into a 20-year sublease with plaintiff — despite the fact that plaintiff had only a five-year lease with [defendant] and [defendant’s] express consent to the creation of these incongruous interests in his property — would appear to be “‘unintelligible or at least extraordinary,’ explainable only with reference to the oral agreement” …. . Bowers v Hurley, 2015 NY Slip Op 08884, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

REAL PROPERTY (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/CONTRACT LAW (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT)

NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendant’s notice to admit sought concessions that went to the heart of the controversy which should not have been deemed admitted:

CPLR 3123(a) authorizes the service of a notice to admit upon a party, and provides that if a timely response thereto is not served, the contents of the notice are deemed admitted … . However, the purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from contention those matters which are not in dispute in the litigation and which may be readily disposed of … . A notice to admit is not to be employed to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, or to compel admissions of fundamental and material issues or contested ultimate facts … .

Here, as the plaintiff correctly contends, … the notice to admit improperly sought concessions that went to the essence of the controversy between the parties and involved matters that clearly were in contravention of the allegations of the complaint. Thus, the third-party defendant could not have reasonably believed that the admissions he sought were not in substantial dispute … , and those items were palpably improper … . Accordingly, the plaintiff was not obligated to respond to them … . The Supreme Court therefore erred in deeming those items admitted by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the notice. Since those items should not have been deemed admitted, the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3123(b) to withdraw those deemed admissions was unnecessary. 32nd Ave. LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08824, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY USED)/NOTICE TO ADMIT (IMPROPERLY USED)

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS BREACH OF WARRANTY ACTION PROPERLY DENIED; THE WARRANTY CONCERNED THE QUALITY OF MORTGAGES POOLED INTO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined the motion to dismiss the breach of warranty action against JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation (JPMMAC) was properly denied. The warranty required JPMMAC to buy back any defective mortgages which were pooled into residential mortgage-backed securities. The lawsuit was commenced because JPMMAC refused to do so when notified of the problem mortgages. JPMMAC argued that the language of the warranty narrowly restricted the time to which it applied (constituting a so-called “gap” or “bring-down” warranty). Under standard principles of contract interpretation, however, the First Department held that the warranty applied no matter when the material misstatements occurred during the warranty period:

A contractual provision that is clear on its face “must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . This rule applies “with even greater force in commercial contracts negotiated at arm’s length by sophisticated, counseled businesspeople” … . In addition, “courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing” … .

Plaintiff’s claim … states that “[w]ith respect to the period from [the] Whole Loan Sale Date to and including the Closing Date,” JPMMAC warrants that the representations in the Mortgage Loan Schedule and loan tape are correct. There is simply no language in this warranty addressing when the defects in the loans must arise for JPMMAC to be held liable for a misrepresentation on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape. Rather, the language … is straightforward: if false information — for example, information about a borrower’s income or the loan-to-value ratio of a mortgage — was on the Mortgage Loan Schedule and loan tape before October 30, 2006, it constitutes a breach of JPMMAC’s warranties as long as it remained on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape during the warranty period (that is, October 30, 2006 to December 20, 2006). Stated another way, JPMMAC warranted against the existence of any material misstatement during the warranty period, no matter when the misstatements first appeared on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08794, 1st Dept 12-1-15

CONTRACT LAW (BREACH OF WARRANTY, RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/WARRANTY, BREACH OF (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (BREACH OF WARRANTY)

,

Because the Lease Authorized Landlord to Make Repairs, the Erection of Scaffolding Could Not Constitute a Partial Eviction; Occupant Not Named on the Lease Owes Rent Under a Quantum Meruit Theory

With respect to the lessee of a garage, the First Department determined the landlord’s erection of scaffolding to make repairs was allowed by the lease and, therefore, did not constitute a partial eviction. With respect to a party which occupied the premises but which was not a party to the lease, the First Department determined rent was owed to the landlord under a quantum meruit theory:

The … defendants’ argument that they were partially evicted from the garage is unavailing. “To be an eviction, constructive or actual, there must be a wrongful act by the landlord” … . Plaintiff’s installation of temporary scaffolding as part of its repairs to the garage’s facade was not wrongful because it was authorized by the lease … . … “[T]enants are well advised . . . to specify some limits to the exculpatory clause concerning repairs” … . * * *

A claim by a landlord against a nonlessee occupant for use and occupancy should not be foreclosed simply because there is a lease covering the premises. The obligations of the lessee arising under the lease are distinct from the obligations of an occupant of premises toward the owner of those premises.

Notwithstanding the general rule that “[t]he existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … , in the landlord-tenant context, the occupant of premises is liable to the owner of the property for use and occupancy irrespective of the existence of a lease in the name of another entity: “[t]he obligation to pay for use and occupancy does not arise from an underlying contract between the landlord and the occupant[,] [but] [r]ather, an occupant’s duty to pay the landlord for its use and occupancy of the premises is predicated upon the theory of quantum meruit, and is imposed by law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties” … . Carlyle, LLC v Beekman Garage LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08499, 1st Dept 11-19-15

 

, ,

Fraud Allegations In Connection With a Real Estate Sale Must Be Analyzed within the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ complaint alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment in connection with a real estate purchase should have been dismissed. It was alleged the defendant made misrepresentations re: termite damage and mold. The court explained that allegations of fraud in a real estate transaction must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor. Here the plaintiffs were aware that the house had been treated for wood destroying insects, an inspection report had been issued, and plaintiffs had conducted their own inspection. The defendant made no representations on which plaintiffs relied and did not actively conceal the condition of the property or thwart plaintiffs’ efforts to discover damage:

“In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” …  . However, in the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor. ” New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment'” … . “If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property” … . * * *

” To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor'” … . Here, the defendant showed, prima facie, that she did not thwart the plaintiffs’ efforts to discover any termite or mold damage. Indeed, the plaintiffs conducted an inspection of the property for the purpose of determining if there were wood destroying insects, and they themselves saw some evidence that the property had been treated for insect activity during their … visit, but undertook no further investigation … . The mere fact that the defendant undertook previous repair work on the house is not tantamount to concealment of a defective condition.  Hecker v Paschke, 2015 NY Slip Op 08385, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

, ,

Transfer of Assets to Qualify for Medicaid Constituted a Breach of the Defendants’ Contract with Plaintiff Continuing Care Retirement Community

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the defendants’ (the Yezzis’) transfer of funds in order to qualify for Medicaid constituted a breach of the contract with the plaintiff (GSV), a continuing care retirement community (CCRC), as well as a fraudulent transfer under the Debtor-Creditor Law:

… [T]he essence of the CCRC financial model requires a tradeoff between the resident and the facility, in which the resident must disclose and spend his or her assets for the services provided, while the facility must continue to provide those services for the duration of the resident’s lifetime even after private funds are exhausted and Medicaid becomes the only source of payment. With this long-term commitment, the facility necessarily must evaluate the financial feasibility of accepting a resident in the first instance.

Pertinent here, the contract provided that the Yezzis could “not transfer assets represented as available in [their] application to be a [r]esident of [GSV] for less than fair market value, unless the transfer [would] not impair [their] ability to pay [their] financial obligations to [GSV].” The contract further required the Yezzis to “make every reasonable effort to meet [their] financial obligations” to GSV and prohibited them from making “any transfers or gifts after actual occupancy, which would substantially impair [their] ability or the ability of [their] estate to satisfy [their] financial obligations to [GSV].” Further, the contract specifies that the financial information disclosed with their application was “a material part of this [contract], . . . [that was] incorporated as a part of this [contract].” Although, as defendants correctly contend, the contract does not affirmatively state that the Yezzis must expend the private resources identified with their application, it does expressly preclude the transfer of such resources without fair consideration.

Given the long-term nature of the contract, which expressly embraced the prospect of nursing facility care, we agree with Supreme Court that the admission agreement is supplemental to, and does not supercede, the contract. We recognize that, under the admission agreement, the Yezzis were required to “pay for, or arrange to have paid for by Medicaid, . . . all services provided by [GSV]” (emphasis added). We are not, however, persuaded by defendants’ interpretation that this disjunctive provision required plaintiff to accept Medicaid as an alternative payment source. Construed together, the contract and admission agreement are actually compatible in that the CCRC financial model anticipates that, upon depletion of a resident’s personal resources, Medicaid will be the ultimate source of payment — and plaintiff is contractually obligated to accept Medicaid while continuing to provide the same services. Consistently, addendum X to the admission agreement specifies that, “[i]t is the responsibility of residents, and those who assist them, to use the residents’ assets and income to pay the costs associated with their residency and health care.” Good Shepherd Vil. at Endwell, Inc. v Yezzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 08031, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

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