You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

Allegations of Fraud in the Inducement Did Not Invalidate the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged that an agreement to sell her business and related real property was induced by fraud and, therefore, the arbitration clause in the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. The court noted that the agreement was properly signed by plaintiff’s attorney as her attorney-in-fact and plaintiff attended the closing where she signed the relevant documents. She was deemed, therefore, to have read and understood the documents. The court explained its limited role in determining whether a matter is arbitrable, and further explained that, absent fraud which permeated the entire agreement, the arbitration clause will still be enforced in the face of allegations of fraud in the inducement:

Arbitration is a favored method of dispute resolution in New York … . “[T]he announced policy of this State favors and encourages arbitration as a means of conserving the time and resources of the courts and the contracting parties” … . “New York courts interfere as little as possible with the freedom of consenting parties’ to submit disputes to arbitration” … . Parties to arbitration agreements should be prevented from using the courts as a vehicle to protract litigation … . The threshold issue of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate is for the courts … . Once it is determined that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the subject matter in dispute, the court’s role has ended and it may not address the merits of the particular claims … . * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals ruled that an arbitration clause is generally separable from substantive provisions of a contract, so that an agreement to arbitrate is valid even if the substantive provisions of the contract are induced by fraud … . However, if a party can demonstrate that “the alleged fraud was part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire contract, including the arbitration provision, the arbitration provision should fall with the rest of the 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” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing. Ferrarella v Godt, 2015 NY Slip Op 06571, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

, ,

Elements of Tortious Interference with Contract and Tortious Interference With Prospective Business Relations Explained

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the counterclaims alleging tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations were properly dismissed. The counterclaims alleged that the plaintiffs-attorneys, who represented defendant, Landmark, improperly sought payment of attorney’s fees for a negotiated stipulation of settlement directly from the party with whom Landmark settled, rather than from Landmark. In dismissing the counterclaims, the court explained the required elements of each:

A necessary element of [tortious interference with contract] is the intentional and improper procurement of a breach and damages … . Here, Landmark failed to adequately plead facts that would establish that the plaintiffs, in communicating with the third party to secure their attorney’s fees, intentionally procured that party’s breach of the stipulation of settlement… . …

A claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations does not require a breach of an existing contract, but the party asserting the claim must meet a “more culpable conduct” standard … . This standard is met where the interference with prospective business relations was accomplished by wrongful means or where the offending party acted for the sole purpose of harming the other party … . ” Wrongful means’ include physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and some degrees of economic pressure” … . As a general rule, the offending party’s conduct must amount to a crime or an independent tort, as conduct that is neither criminal nor tortious will generally be “lawful” and thus insufficiently “culpable” to create liability for interference with prospective business relations … . The mere violation of an attorney disciplinary rule will only create liability if actual damages are incurred as a result of the violating conduct  … . In addition, where the offending party’s actions are motivated by economic self-interest, they cannot be characterized as solely malicious … . Law Offs. of Ira H. Leibowitz v Landmark Ventures, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06575, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

Under the Terms of the Lease and the Related Guaranty of Payment, the Guarantor Was Required to Pay Liquidated Damages in an Amount Equal to the Rent for the Unfinished Term of the Lease Even After the Tenant Was Evicted and the Landlord Had Regained Possession of the Property

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the terms of appellant’s guaranty of payment of amounts owed under a lease obligated the appellant even after the tenant had left the premises and the landlord took possession. Although the tenant’s obligation to pay rent had ended when the plaintiff-landlord took possession, the terms of the lease allowed the plaintiff to seek the amount of the rent for the remaining term of the lease as liquidated damages and did not require the plaintiff to mitigate those damages by renting to another:

“Although an eviction terminates the landlord-tenant relationship, the parties to a lease are not foreclosed from contracting as they please” … . Where a lease provides that a landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages after its reentry by virtue of its successful prosecution of a summary proceeding, and that the tenant remains liable for damages, “[the tenant] remain[s] liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease” … .

Here, the lease did not obligate the plaintiff to mitigate damages after reentry by virtue of its successful prosecution of a summary proceeding, and specifically provided that in the event of such reentry, “tenant shall also pay owner as liquidated damages . . . any deficiency between the rent hereby received and or covenanted to be paid and the net amount, if any, of the rent collected on account of the subsequent lease or leases of the demised premises for each month of the period which would otherwise have constituted the balance of the term of this lease.” Thus, although the tenant no longer remained liable for rent after it vacated the premises, it was liable for liquidated damages, which could be as much as the balance of rent due under the original term of the lease, since the plaintiff was under no obligation to rent to a new tenant for the balance of the term. Moreover, the guaranty specifically stated that the appellant guaranteed “the full and prompt payment by Tenant of all amounts due under [the] lease.” Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to seek from the appellant the liquidated damages for which the tenant was liable under the lease even after the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship… . H.L. Realty, LLC v Edwards, 2015 NY Slip Op 06572, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)

In a case which was consolidated with the case summarized immediately above, the Second Department determined the defendant, J.D. Posillica, Inc., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because it had demonstrated that none of the three theories of “tort liability arising from a contract” applied. It is not clear from the decision whether the defendant was required, by the nature of the pleadings, to address all three theories in order to be entitled to summary judgment (to be safe, address all three?):

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . Here, the defendant J.D. Posillico, Inc. … , met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating, prima facie, that none of the exceptions were applicable as against it in this case… . Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06581, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close

The First Department, over an extensive dissent by Justice Saxe, determined that the defendants, who had entered an agreement to purchase plaintiffs’ condominium, were not justified in repudiating the agreement based upon on-going “firestopping” work in the condominium-building, and, even if the agreement had been effectively repudiated, the purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide.”  Therefore, the plaintiffs-sellers were entitled to keep the purchasers’ $365,000 downpayment based upon purchasers’ failure to close. The issue on appeal came down to whether the plaintiffs-sellers breached a paragraph of the agreement which required them to clear the unit of any code violations of which the plaintiffs had been notified in writing by the condominium board of managers. The majority determined no such notice had been given to the plaintiffs-sellers. The majority further determined the defendants’ purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide” because it was conditioned on proof of the completion of the firestopping work, thereby imposing a condition not contemplated by the contract:

… [D]efendants point to no provision in the contract that justifies their initial purported reason for canceling the contract, which was that it threatened the safety of themselves and their children. Nor do they claim that plaintiffs somehow prevented them from learning of the firestopping issue. To the contrary, the contract itself referred expressly to a … notice from the board of managers that discussed the status of the then ongoing firestopping project. This was sufficient to place defendants on notice of a potential issue that might have given them pause to execute an agreement in which they acknowledged they were accepting the unit as is.

Because defendants had no right to insist that the firestopping issue be resolved as a condition to closing, their “retraction” of the purported repudiation was ineffective. In order to be effective, a retraction of a contract repudiation must be bona fide … . Defendants’ acceptance of plaintiffs’ offer to schedule a closing was not bona fide, because it was conditioned on plaintiffs’ provision of documents and information establishing to defendants’ satisfaction that the firestopping had been completed. We disagree with the dissent that the letter from defendants’ counsel conditionally retracting the repudiation creates an issue of fact as to whether it was bona fide. That letter unquestionably adhered to defendants’ position, which had supported the initial repudiation, that plaintiffs had a contractual obligation to ensure proper firestopping in the apartment before delivering the deed. The clear implication of the letter was that, if plaintiffs could not establish to defendants’ complete satisfaction that the firestopping work had been performed, defendants would once again refuse to close. As stated above, this position was untenable, and clearly, contrary to the dissent’s view, sought to insert an additional material term or condition into the contract. Again, nothing in the contract required plaintiffs to perform any firestopping, and plaintiffs were entitled to view defendants’ continued insistence on proof that they had done so as an justified refusal to perform under the agreement. Beinstein v Navani, 2015 NY Slip Op 06403, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

,

correspondence which was intended to lead to a settlement agreement (re: real property taxes) did not create a binding agreement

The Third Department determined correspondence which was intended to lead to a settlement agreement (re: real property taxes) did not create a binding agreement. Subsequent to the correspondence, proposed stipulations had been circulated but were not executed. The Court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

… [A]n out-of-court settlement agreement “is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by [that party] or [that party’s] attorney” (CPLR 2104). Writings between parties to an action or proceeding that discuss the possibility of settlement will be considered to constitute a binding agreement if “the settlement agreement was adequately described in [such] writings, namely, the agreement was clear, the product of mutual accord and contained all material terms” … . Settlement-related writings may be deemed to have contained sufficiently detailed terms to give rise to a binding agreement when, for example, these writings explicitly incorporate the terms of other documents prepared in anticipation of settlement … . In contrast, settlement-related writings will not be found to have created a binding agreement if they expressly anticipate a subsequent writing that is to officially memorialize the existence of a settlement agreement and set forth all of its material terms … . Matter of George W. & Dacie Clements Agric. Research Inst., Inc. v Green, 2015 NY Slip Op 06399, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract complaint, finding that the exceptions to the enforceability of a “no damages for delay” clause did not apply, and the “mandatory notice” clause precluded suit for “extra work.” Plaintiff was engaged by defendant to install heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment:

As a general rule, “contract clauses exculpating the contractee from liability to the contractor for damages resulting from delays in performance of the contract work” are valid and enforceable … . However, even where the contract contains such a clause, there are several recognized exceptions. As relevant here, a contractor may still recover for “delays caused by the contractee’s bad faith or its willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct” … . A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay damages “bears the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie that none of the exceptions to the ‘damages for delay’ clause are present” … .  * * *

… [P]laintiff attempts to claim compensation for tasks that allegedly constituted “extra work” beyond the scope of the parties’ contract. However, a provision in the contract required plaintiff to notify defendant that it considered a task to constitute extra work within 15 working days after being ordered to undertake the task or beginning to perform it. Here, plaintiff concedes that it did not notify defendant of this claim until five months after it began performance of the disputed task. Thus, “[d]efendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that [plaintiff] did not comply with the condition precedent” by providing timely notice … . Tougher Indus., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06388, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract

In affirming the judgment awarded plaintiff in this breach of contract action, the Third Department noted that a “non time of the essence” real estate purchase contract can be converted to a “time of the essence” contract by giving the buyer clear, unequivocal notice and a reasonable time to perform, as was done by the seller here. 12 Baker Hill Rd., Inc. v Miranti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06400, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Judge’s Failure to Recuse Himself Was an Abuse of Discretion/Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with a Condition Precedent Mandated Summary Judgment to Defendants

The Third Department determined the judge hearing a case concerning the construction of a casino and resort should have recused himself. The judge’s wife was in the county legislature and had voiced support of defendants’ position. In his decision granting summary judgment to the defendants, the judge stated to do otherwise would “violate public policy,” an issue which was not properly part of the case before him. However, the Third Department went on to consider the merits of the case. Plaintiffs’ failure to meet a condition precedent (concerning the financing of the project) by the specified date was an unambiguous breach of the contract, mandating summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Considering the irrelevancy of [the judge’s] comments to the issues before the court and the parallels between them and the public comments of [his wife] in support of [defendants’] casino proposal, [the judge’s] inclusion of such inherently legislative and policy considerations as a basis for his order displays a striking lack of “sensitivity to the aroma of favoritism [that] such a favorable disposition could engender” … . Under the circumstances, it seems to us that [the judge] should have recognized that this was a situation in which his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]), and, therefore, we must conclude that his failure to recuse himself constituted a clear abuse of discretion … . Concord Assoc., L.P. v EPT Concord, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06393, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Parent Corporation Not Entitled to Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) Property Tax Credits Because a Related But Separate Entity Did Not Make Payments Required by Its “Payment In Lieu of Taxes” (PILOT) Agreement

With regard to a building in the City of Rochester, the Third Department determined a parent corporation was not entitled to Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) tax credits because a related but separate limited partnership, Rochwil, did not make payments required by its “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) agreement.

The primary issue presented in this proceeding is whether petitioner could claim a refund for unused QEZE real property tax credits that were reported by its subsidiary based on its partnership interest in Rochwil for PILOT payments that were not made. As the taxpayer seeking a tax credit, petitioner “bears the burden of establishing that such credit is unambiguously set forth in the statute” … . To meet this burden, petitioner must show that its “interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also that it is the only reasonable construction” … .

We cannot conclude that petitioner met its burden here. As a QEZE, Rochwil was entitled to a credit for eligible real property taxes (see Tax Law former § 15 [a]), and it is not disputed that petitioner was entitled to seek such credit against its corporate franchise taxes during the years at issue (see Tax Law former § 210 [27]). As relevant to this dispute, the term “eligible real property taxes” includes both “taxes imposed on real property which is owned by the QEZE . . . provided such taxes become a lien on the real property” and “[PILOT payments] made by the QEZE to . . . a public benefit corporation” (Tax Law former § 15 [e]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the plain and unambiguous language of the statute provides that real property taxes imposed are distinct from PILOT payments made, and where, as here, a QEZE does not own the property but is instead subject to a PILOT agreement with the property owner, the PILOT payments must be made in order to qualify for the credit provided by Tax Law former § 15 … . Matter of Wilmorite, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06386, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

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