You are here: / Contract Law

Voluntary Payment Doctrine Precluded Lawsuit

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff’s (Klein’s) complaint alleging  breach of contract, fraud, violation of General Business Law, etc., was properly dismissed pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine. Klein procured a loan from defendant. After paying interest and fees to defendant in order to refinance with another lender, Klein sued defendant alleging the fees were excessive and were paid under duress. The majority concluded the voluntary payment doctrine warranted dismissal of the complaint. The dissent argued plaintiff had stated a cause of action alleging the payment was made under duress, and, therefore, was not voluntary:

The voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law … . The onus is on a party that receives what it perceives as an improper demand for money to “take its position at the time of the demand, and litigate the issue before, rather than after, payment is made” … . Here, there is no claim of fraud or mistake. Defendant was entirely aboveboard about the amount of money it expected to be paid to settle the loan. Nevertheless, Klein made the calculated decision to schedule the closing and to pay off the entire amount demanded. Nor, as discussed below, did Klein “take [his] position at the time of the demand.”

Plaintiffs argue that the voluntary doctrine should not apply because Klein was deprived of a meaningful choice as to whether to pay off the loan on defendant’s terms. They further claim that Klein protested the demand and that this shielded plaintiffs from any application of the doctrine. Nothing in plaintiffs’ complaint or papers in opposition to the motion suggests that these are viable positions. It is assumed, of course, that plaintiffs’ factual allegations are true, both in the complaint and in opposition to the motion … . However, conclusory allegations will not serve to defeat a motion to dismiss … . Nothing in the complaint or the affidavit alleges any reason why Klein had no choice but to go through with the closing; indeed, he was able to put off the closing the first time he received from defendant what he considered an unreasonable payoff demand. DRMAK Realty LLC v Progressive Credit Union, 2015 NY Slip Op 08044, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

, ,

Cause of Action Based Upon a Dispute About the Correct Rent-Increase Computation Accrues on the First Use of the Disputed Computational Methodology

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from a dispute about the proper rent computation in an ambiguous contract was time-barred. The lawsuit was started in 2009. However, the rent computation problem was apparent in 1999. That is when the statute of limitations started running and it does not start anew every year the problem persisted:

In Goldman Copeland [260 AD2d 370], this Court squarely held that a claim for breach of contract based on an allegedly erroneous computation of rent accrues upon the first use of that computational methodology, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run anew each time the same formula is used. * * *

Goldman Copeland is a precedent of this Court, and we adhere to it as a matter of stare decisis. Its holding applies to this case, as Tenant consistently paid, and Landlord accepted, rent based on two successive 50-cents-per-square-foot escalations from 1999 through 2009, when this action was commenced. Further, when the first rent escalation went into effect in late 1999, Landlord could have determined, through the use of simple arithmetic, that the lease’s rent illustrations for the initial 25-year term were not based on 10% increases. When Landlord subsequently discovered in 2001 that it had not been billing rent based on a 10% escalation since 1999, the discovery was not based on any information that Landlord had not possessed in 1999. K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07905, 1st Dept 10-29-15

 

Implied Definite Term of Duration

The Second Department explained the analytical criteria for determining the duration of a contract with no express definite term of duration. If there is no definite term of duration, the contract is terminable at will.  However, a definite term of duration need not be express (it can be implied from the surrounding circumstances):

Contracts containing no definite term of duration are terminable at will … . A definite term of duration need not be relayed in express terms, and may be implied … , and “where a duration may be fairly and reasonably supplied by implication, a contract is not terminable at will … . “In the absence of an express term fixing the duration of a contract, the courts may inquire into the intent of the parties and supply the missing term if a duration may be fairly and reasonably fixed by the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ intent” … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, by fair implication, the duration of the parties’ agreements was dependent upon the continued sale of the products designated in the subject agreements and, thus, the agreements could be terminated only upon [defendant’s] discontinuation of the sale of the designated products. Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07806, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

, ,

“Bad Faith Claims Handling” Cause of Action Properly Dismissed As Duplicative of Breach of Contract Cause of Action/Sanctions Appropriate for Inclusion of Dismissed Cause of Action in Amended Complaint

The First Department determined a purported cause of action for “bad faith claims handling” in an insurance-coverage dispute was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (and was therefore properly dismissed). The court further determined that attorney sanctions were appropriate for including a dismissed cause of action in an amended complaint. The First Department explained the (rare) circumstance when breach of contract will give rise to a distinct tort cause of action (not the case here):

In some circumstances “[t]he very nature of a contractual obligation, and the public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care, may give rise to a duty of reasonable care in performance of the contract obligations, and the breach of that independent duty will give rise to a tort claim” …, in which the Court held that “a fire alarm company owed its customer a duty of reasonable care independent of its contractual obligations, and that notwithstanding a contractual provision exculpating the alarm company from damages flowing from its negligence, it could be held liable in tort for its gross failure to properly perform its contractual services” … . Further, “[w]here a party has fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract, it may be liable in tort” … . However, “where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie” … . Orient Overseas Assoc. v XL Ins. Am., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07788, 1st Dept 10-27-15

 

,

Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to defendant insurer. A fire damaged school dormitories. The insurer paid for the repair but paid only $10,000 toward the more than $200,000 the school paid to relocate the students. The court determined that the policy was unambiguous and the $10,000 limit was properly applied to the relocation costs. The court explained the relevant analytical principles:

In construing policy provisions defining the scope of coverage pursuant to a policy of insurance, courts ” first look to the language of the policy'” …, reading it ” in light of common speech and the reasonable expectations of a businessperson'” …, and in a manner that ” leaves no provision without force and effect'” … . The unambiguous terms of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such terms is a question of law for the court … . Where an ” agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, a court is not free to alter the contract to reflect its personal notions of fairness and equity'” … . However, if the terms of the policy are ambiguous, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The $10,000 limitation was at the end of the pertinent “Additional Coverage” section 5 titled “Institutional Income and Extra Expense.” The limitation stated that the most the defendant “will pay under this Additional Coverage for Institutional Income and Extra Expense is $10,000, unless a higher limit is shown on the Declarations Page.” There was no such higher limit shown on that page. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, there was no ambiguity in this additional coverage. Viznitz v Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enforceable

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forum selection and time limitation clauses in a “Carnival” cruise ship ticket were enforceable. The passenger’s personal injury complaint was dismissed:

A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket is generally enforceable as long as it has been reasonably communicated to the passenger and does not violate notions of fundamental fairness, and the submission thereof constitutes documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Here, Carnival’s submissions established that the plaintiffs’ contract of carriage included a clause requiring that any disputes between the parties “shall be litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country.” Furthermore, the contract provided that an action to recover damages for personal injuries “shall not be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury.” Carnival also established that the plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to review their tickets, and there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching … . Fritsche v Carnival Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Environmental Clean-Up Indemnification Agreement Between Seller and Buyer of Property Triggered by Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) “Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)” Letter to Buyer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the environmental clean-up indemnification agreement between the seller (Pyne) and buyer (Remet) of property was triggered by the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) letter to Remet. Although the letter referred to Remet as a “potentially” responsible party (PRP), the letter required that Remet enter into a consent agreement (re: the clean-up) with the DEC or, if no consent agreement is executed within 30 days, pay for the clean-up done by the DEC:

The plain language of the governing contractual indemnity provision, together with the language of the PRP letter and the surrounding facts and circumstances, demonstrate that Remet was entitled to indemnification because it was “required,” within the meaning of the sales agreement, to act in response to the PRP letter. The PRP letter stated that it pertained to an “Urgent Legal Matter,” indicated that a prompt reply was “necessary,” and set forth the consequences that would flow from Remet’s refusal to act. Regardless of whether Remet was designated a potentially responsible party or a responsible party, the letter demanded either a consent order or payment, and any language indicating that Remet’s response was voluntary must be read in terms of those demands. In other words, the PRP letter — by its terms — effectively marked the beginning of a “legal” process against Remet pursuant to the ECL, in which DEC expressly sought recovery from Remet for any amounts expended in remediating the [the site].

Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the indemnification clause include the parties’ awareness that, because the [site] was listed as an inactive hazardous waste site, the purchaser of the property at issue here risked incurring substantial expenses, and that Pyne accordingly deposited a large sum in escrow to cover at least a portion of those potential expenses. Remet Corp. v Estate of Pyne, 2015 NY Slip Op 07575, CtApp 10-20-15

 

,

contract for the sale of busiwas not intertwined with the promissory note and personal guaranty

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the contract for the sale of plaintiff’s one-half share of a business to defendant was not intertwined with the promissory note and personal guaranty executed by the defendant in connection with the sale. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in lieu of a complaint based upon defendant’s default:

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, the personal guaranty, and proof of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense … . “[T]he general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are intertwined and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish that the agreement and the promissory note were intertwined, such that any breach of the related agreement by the plaintiff may create a defense to payment on the note. Chervinsky v Rezhets, 2015 NY Slip Op 07463, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

,

Where Equitable Relief Described in “Sole Remedy Clause” is Impossible, Monetary Damages Are Available

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, in a case addressing many specific-contract-provision issues not summarized here, determined that where the sole remedy clause of a contract allows only equitable relief, and that equitable relief is impossible, monetary damages may be available. The action stems from the collapse of the residential mortgage -backed securities (RSMB) market. The complaints alleged the breach of several representations and warranties (concerning the underlying mortgages) in the mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA). The “sole remedy clause” in the agreement purported to limit relief to the defendant’s repurchase of defective mortgages. However repurchase of foreclosed or liquidated mortgages was impossible. In that situation, the First Department held, equity allows the imposition of monetary damages:

Under defendant’s interpretation of the “sole remedy” clause, loans that have been foreclosed upon or liquidated cannot be repurchased and, by agreeing to those provisions, plaintiff accepted the risk of loss such an event would entail. However, such an interpretation would leave plaintiffs without a remedy with respect to those loans, as their only recourse would be to commence an action for specific performance, which would be impossible to fulfill. The present state of the law does not support defendant’s contention.

New York law has long held that contracting parties are generally free to limit their remedies. “A limitation on liability provision in a contract represents the parties’ agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor” … . Therefore, by the terms of the “sole remedy” clause, the agreements limit plaintiffs to seeking an order of specific performance requiring defendant to repurchase the defective loans at the purchase price defined in those agreements, or to cure the defects in those loans.

However, specific performance is an equitable remedy. In the RMBS context, most courts have repeatedly held that “while a provision providing for equitable relief as the sole remedy’ will generally foreclose alternative relief, where the granting of equitable relief appears to be impossible or impracticable, equity may award damages in lieu of the desired equitable remedy'” … . Such a rule makes sense, for to hold otherwise would create a “perverse[]” incentive for a sponsor “to fill the trust with junk mortgages that would expeditiously default so that they could be released, charged off, or liquidated before a repurchase claim is made” … . Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07458, 1st Dept 10-13-15

 

Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained

The Fourth Department concluded that defendant’s papers were not sufficient to warrant summary judgment invalidating a liquidated damages provision of an agreement, but noted that plaintiff may not be able to prove the validity of the provision at trial. Liquidated damages are valid only if they bear a reasonable relationship to the loss; otherwise they constitute an unenforceable penalty. Here plaintiff sold defendant a car with the condition that the car not be re-sold for one year. Defendant sold the car two weeks after purchase and plaintiff sued to enforce the $20,000 liquidated damages provision of the “agreement not to export.”  The court explained the relevant law:

Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they comprise ” an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … . As a general rule, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable only if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . If, however, the clause provides for damages that are ” plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .

Here, defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the amount of liquidated damages does not bear a reasonable relation to plaintiff’s actual damages. In support of his motion, defendant relied on affidavits from himself and his attorney, both of whom asserted, upon information and belief only, that plaintiff sustained no actual damages, and that the liquidated damages clause is therefore unenforceable. Defendant offered no evidence in support of those conclusory assertions, and therefore failed to meet his initial burden of proof … . Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Although defendant may be correct in contending that plaintiff cannot establish at trial that it sustained any actual damages as a result of defendant’s breach of the Agreement, it is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense “and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07394, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

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