You are here: / Contract Law
, , , , , ,

Flaws in Causes of Action Stemming from the Alleged Breach of a Joint Venture Agreement Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of a joint venture agreement, the Second Department, in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, went through each cause of action and, where dismissal was appropriate, noted the pleading failure. The joint venture cause of action did not allege a mutual promise to share the losses. The constructive trust cause of action did not allege a confidential or fiduciary relationship. The fraud allegations were not collateral to the terms of the alleged joint venture and no out-of-pocket losses were alleged. The tortious interference with contract cause of action did not allege the intentional procurement of a breach of the joint venture agreement. The accounting cause of action did not allege that a demand for an accounting was made. The Second Department noted that the motion to amend the complaint to cure some of the defects should have been granted. With respect to the criteria for determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence supporting the motion is submitted, the court explained:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … .

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), “the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . A court may consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted to one for summary judgment, “the criterion is whether the [plaintiff] has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it . . . dismissal should not eventuate”… . Mawere v Landau, 2015 NY Slip Op 06317, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Criteria for an Intended Third-Party Beneficiary of a Contract Explained

The Second Department determined the documents submitted by defendant power companies did not utterly refute plaintiff school-district’s allegation that it was an intended (not “incidental”) third-party beneficiary of a Power Supply Agreement (PSA) in which the defendants agreed not to bring any further tax certiorari proceedings to challenge property tax assessments. The school district brought the breach of contract action when the defendants started a tax certiorari proceeding. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence was properly denied. The court explained the criteria for a third-party beneficiary of a contract:

” A non-party [to a contract] may sue for breach of contract only if it is an intended, and not a mere incidental, beneficiary'” … . However, ” the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution'” … . “A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” … . ” In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement,'” and ” the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract'” … . Board of Educ. of Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist. v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06304, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

Same issue and result in: Town of Huntington v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06332, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, , ,

Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable

The Second Department determined the city and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) were immune from suit by plaintiff, who was assaulted in a city homeless shelter. The city’s obligation to provide security is a governmental function for which it cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with the plaintiff (not the case here).  However, the private security company, FJC  was not immune from suit. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between DHS and FJC. FJC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate it was not negligent and the attack was not foreseeable:

The plaintiff’s theory of recovery was premised upon the alleged failure of the municipal defendants to provide an adequate and proper security force to prevent attacks by third parties at the homeless shelter where the subject incident occurred. Such a claim, however, implicates a governmental function, liability for the performance of which is barred absent the breach of a special duty owed to the injured party … . Here, the municipal defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they owed no special duty of care to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, that branch of the municipal defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted … . …

However, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the motion of the defendant FJC Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter FJC), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its contention, FJC, a private, for-profit contractor of security services, is not entitled to governmental immunity … . In addition, the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between FJC and DHS. The provisions of the contract between FJC and DHS unequivocally express an intent to confer a direct benefit on the homeless clients in residence at the City shelter, such as the plaintiff, to protect them from physical injury. Thus, in order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, FJC was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether it was negligent in the performance of its duties, or that the assault on the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any breach of its duties … .  FJC failed to demonstrate either. Clark v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06307, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Preventing a Party from Carrying Out Its Agreement Constitutes a Material Breach

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly held that defendants breached the contract. Plaintiff owned a business which produced and sold aggregate stone. Plaintiff entered a lease agreement with defendants which allowed plaintiff to remove stone from a quarry on defendants’ property and required that defendants pay “rent” based upon the amount of stone removed. No stone was removed for some time. Defendants sent a letter indicating they would consider the lease null and void unless plaintiff started up the business within 90 days. The parties then entered discussions, some stone was removed and rent was paid. Thereafter, the defendants unilaterally declared the lease null and void, ordered plaintiff to remove its equipment, and prevented plaintiff from entering the property. Supreme Court found plaintiff had done enough to comply with defendants’ initial demand that plaintiff start up its business and, therefore, defendants’ actions, which prevented plaintiff from carrying out its agreement, constituted a material breach. The Third Department agreed:

“In the case of every contract there is an implied undertaking on the part of each party that he [or she] will not intentionally and purposely do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement on his [or her] part” … . In the April 1996 letter, [defendant] advised [plaintiff]  that the lease was null and void, threatened legal action if plaintiff did not “promptly” remove its equipment from the quarry, and stated that [defendant] did not consider himself bound by the lease because it was void. Two months later, defendants’ counsel advised plaintiff’s counsel that it was defendants’ position that the lease had been rescinded and that plaintiff “ha[d] no right to enter upon the property.” … “[R]efusing to permit the other party to perform is a breach of contract” … . Here, defendants’ unilateral declaration that the lease was null and void, and their threat of legal action if plaintiff did not promptly remove its equipment, followed shortly thereafter by the statement of defendants’ counsel that plaintiff had no right to enter the property, constituted a refusal to permit plaintiff to perform. Galusha & Sons, LLC v Champlain Stone, Ltd, 2015 NY Slip Op 06286, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

General Obligations Law Prohibition of Indemnification Agreements Which Exempt a Lessor from Its Own Negligence Does Not Apply to a Commercial Lease Negotiated at Arm’s Length Between Sophisticated Parties With an Insurance Procurement Requirement

The Second Department determined the lessor of a shopping center, Montauk Properties, under the terms of its lease with a supermarket, Gambar Food, was entitled to indemnification re: plaintiff’s slip and fall on a sidewalk in front of the supermarket.  Although the terms of the lease exempted the lessor from liability for its own negligence, which is a violation of General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-321, GOL 5-231 does not apply to a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated parties with an insurance procurement requirement:

The lease between Montauk Properties and Gambar Food requires Gambar Food to indemnify Montauk Properties “for any matter or thing growing out of the occupation of the demised premises or of the streets, sidewalks or vaults adjacent thereto.” The plaintiff’s accident falls within the scope of this indemnification provision …, which, under its broadly drawn language, obligates Gambar Food to indemnify Montauk Properties for its own negligence. Although General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable, the subject indemnification provision is not rendered unenforceable by this statute. “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement” … . Campisi v Gambar Food Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06205, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

“Voluntary Payment Doctrine” Explained and Applied to Preclude Recovery

The Second Department determined the “voluntary payment doctrine” precluded recovery against the defendant. Plaintiff had an agreement with a consignee that plaintiff’s liability associated with the export of fine art would be limited to $40,000. Plaintiff hired defendant to transport the fine art to the consignee, but the art was seized by customs because the documentation was incomplete. The plaintiff, despite the $40,000 liability cap, voluntarily compensated the consignee for its loss (around $240,000). Then plaintiff sued defendant for the $240,000. Because the plaintiff made that payment voluntarily, the “voluntary payment doctrine” required dismissal of the complaint:

“[T]he voluntary payment doctrine . . . bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the submission of, among other things, a copy of the contract between the plaintiff and the consignee, which included the limitation of liability provision that capped the plaintiff’s liability to the consignee at $40,000. This demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s payment to the consignee of anything more than $40,000 was voluntary … . Further, the defendant demonstrated, prima face, that the plaintiff recovered the full $40,000 for which it was liable to the consignee from its insurance company. Hedley’s, Inc. v Airwaves Global Logistics, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06215, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

, ,

Failure to Timely Submit a Proposed Judgment of Divorce Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Divorce Action/Decedent’s Death Before the Judgment of Divorce Was Entered Did Not Abate the Divorce Action/The Stipulation of Settlement (Re: the Divorce), In Which the Parties Agreed They Were No Longer the Beneficiaries of Each Other’s Wills, Was Enforceable

Decedent and her husband had entered a stipulation of settlement and all matters related to their divorce had been settled at the time of decedent’s death. Only the submission of the proposed judgment of divorce remained. The stipulation of settlement included the parties’ agreement that they were no longer the beneficiaries of each other’s wills. Decedent’s husband sought letters testamentary and a share in the estate, arguing that, because the proposed judgment of divorce was not submitted by decedent, decedent had abandoned the divorce action. Surrogate’s court agreed the divorce action had been abandoned and found there was a question of fact whether the stipulation of settlement was enforceable.  The Second Department reversed, finding that the divorce action was not abandoned and the stipulation of settlement was enforceable. Decedent’s husband, therefore, had no right to share in decedent’s estate:

Contrary to the Surrogate Court’s determination, the decedent did not abandon the divorce action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 by failing to timely submit a proposed judgment within 60 days of the Supreme Court’s verbal direction. Since the 60-day time period to submit a proposed judgment under 22 NYCRR 202.48(a) does not run until “after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the [judgment] be settled or submitted,” and the court’s direction was not reduced to a written decision, there was no violation of that rule here … . Furthermore, since all issues in the divorce action had been resolved at the time of the decedent’s death, the Supreme Court had adjudged that the decedent was entitled to a divorce, and nothing remained to be done except the ministerial entry of a judgment of divorce, the decedent’s death did not abate the divorce action … . Under these circumstances “the parties’ substantive rights should be determined as if the judgment of divorce had been entered immediately as of the time nothing remained to be done except enter a judgment” …, and the stipulation of settlement is thus enforceable as a matter of law. Moreover, since the stipulation of settlement contained language which “clearly and unequivocally manifests an intent on the part of the spouses that they are no longer beneficiaries under each other’s wills” …, the stipulation of settlement revoked any testamentary disposition in Carmine’s favor under EPTL 3-4.3, regardless of whether it was ultimately followed by a formal dissolution of the marriage … . Matter of Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 06247, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

,

Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract complaint. Defendants owned an improved parcel of land next to a parcel owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased a portion of defendants’ parcel and the parties entered an agreement which included a promise by the defendants that they would not object to any construction on plaintiff’s parcel, which was interpreted by the court to mean defendants agreed to provide their consent if it was necessary to the construction. Upon an examination of the facts, the court concluded plaintiff did not demonstrate he needed the defendants’ consent to anything related to the construction, and therefore the contract provision requiring defendants to consent was never triggered. The aspect of the case which is worth noting is the court’s determination that a purely legal question of contract interpretation was involved and that the purely legal question could be raised for the first time on appeal. The court explained that “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract…”:

Initially, although defendants’ arguments on appeal differ from those made in support of their motion, they may be considered by this Court because they present a pure legal issue of contract interpretation, which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised below … .

“On appeal, the standard of review is for this Court to examine the contract’s language de novo” … . “Our function is to apply the meaning intended by the parties, as derived from the language of the contract in question” … . In interpreting a contract, words should be accorded their “fair and reasonable meaning,” and “the aim is a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties to the end that there be a realization of [their] reasonable expectations” … . Moreover, “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . Although the parties offer conflicting interpretations of a contract, that does not render it ambiguous … . Moreover, “where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument, interpretation of the contract is a question of law and no trial is necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract” … . Dreisinger v Teglasi, 2015 NY Slip Op 06197, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

, ,

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)

In finding the constructive trust cause of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred, the Second Department explained that a cause of action for a constructive trust accrues (1) when the constructive trustee acquires the property wrongfully, or (2) when the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property which was lawfully acquired but was to be transferred:

A cause of action “for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(1), which starts to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution” … . “A determination of when the wrongful act triggering the running of the Statute of Limitations occurs depends upon whether the constructive trustee acquired the property wrongfully, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date of acquisition, or whether the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust is not … that the defendants wrongfully acquired the subject properties in or around 1995, or 1996, but rather that subsequent thereto, sometime in 2012, the defendant… breached her promise to the plaintiff that they would be equal partners with respect to those properties … . Barone v Barone, 2015 NY Slip Op 06102, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written Contract Was Relied Upon Precluded Fraud in the Inducement Cause of Action/Summary Judgment on Promissory Note Precluded—Breach of Contract Cause of Action Was Intertwined with Promissory Note

In a decision addressing many other issues, the Second Department determined specific disclaimers in the contract indicating nothing extrinsic to the contract was relied upon by the parties precluded any claim alleging fraudulent inducement.  The court also noted that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on a promissory note because the note was intertwined with the breach of contract cause of action:

“While a general merger clause is ineffective to exclude parol evidence of fraud in the inducement, a specific disclaimer destroys the allegations in [a] plaintiff’s complaint that the agreement was executed in reliance upon . . . contrary oral [mis]representations'” … . In support of this branch of their motion, [defendant] relied upon the contract, which provides that [defendant] made no representation or warranty, either express or implied, as to the assets sold, [defendant’s] business, or “any matter or thing affecting or relating to this agreement, except as specifically set forth in this agreement.” The contract also indicates that it contains all of the terms agreed upon between the parties and that it was entered into after full investigation. Such clauses are sufficiently specific to bar the [plaintiffs] from claiming that they were fraudulently induced into entering the contract because of certain oral misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the breach of a related contract generally cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only, that rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined … . Here, the action to recover damages for breach of contract is sufficiently intertwined with the action to recover on the promissory note, such that denial of summary judgment to enforce the promissory note and personal guaranty was proper … . Oseff v Scotti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06123, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

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