You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate the Sale Were Excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA)—Doctrine of “De Facto Merger” Did Not Apply in Absence of “Continuity of Ownership”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined that the buyer of a business (TBA Buyer) did not assume the seller’s (TBA Seller’s) obligation to pay a financial advisor (Fidus) hired by TBA Seller to find a buyer and facilitate a sale. The opinion focused on the precise language of the asset purchase agreement (APA) and held that any monies owed by TBA Seller to Fidus were excluded, by the terms of the APA, from the assets and liabilities TBA Buyer purchased. Much of the opinion addresses the arguments made by the dissent. With respect to the dissent’s argument that TBA Buyer assumed TBA Seller’s obligation to pay Fidus under the “de facto merger” doctrine, the majority wrote:

While the general rule is that, absent a merger or consolidation, an entity purchasing the assets of another entity does not thereby acquire liabilities of the seller not expressly transferred in the sale …, a purchase-of-assets transaction may be deemed to constitute a de facto merger between seller and buyer, even if not formally structured as such, under certain conditions … . We have recognized, however, that “the essence of a merger” … is the element of continuity of ownership, which

“exists where the shareholders of the predecessor corporation become direct or indirect shareholders of the successor corporation as the result of the successor’s purchase of the predecessor’s assets, as occurs in a stock-for-assets transaction. Stated otherwise, continuity of ownership describes a situation where the parties to the transaction become owners together of what formerly belonged to each'” … . * * *

… [U]nder New York law, continuity of ownership is “the touchstone of the [de facto merger] concept” and “thus a necessary predicate to a finding of de facto merger” … . The purpose of requiring continuity of ownership is “to identify situations where the shareholders of a seller corporation retain some ownership interest in their assets after cleansing those assets of liability” … . Stated otherwise, “[t]he fact that the seller’s owners retain their interest in the supposedly sold assets (through their ownership interest in the purchaser) is the substance’ which makes the transaction inequitable” … . By contrast, where a “buyer pays a bona fide, arms-length price for the assets, there is no unfairness to creditors in . . . limiting recovery to the proceeds of the sale — cash or other consideration roughly equal to the value of the purchased assets would take the place of the purchased assets as a resource for satisfying the seller’s debts” … . Thus, “allowing creditors to collect against the purchasers of insolvent debtors’ assets would give the creditors a windfall by increasing the funds available compared to what would have been available if no sale had taken place” … .

In this case, there is no continuity of ownership between TBA Seller and TBA Buyer because, as the record establishes (and Fidus does not dispute), none of TBA Seller’s owners acquired a direct or indirect interest in TBA Buyer (and thus in the transferred assets) as a result of the asset purchase transaction … .  Matter of TBA Global, LLC v Fidus Partners, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06698, 1st Dept 9-1-15

 

,

Recovery Under the Doctrine of Quantum Meruit Was Proper—Proof of Damages Was Sufficient

The Second Department determined defendants, who did construction work without a written contract, were entitled to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit.  The court noted that proof of damages may be based solely on oral testimony as long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs:

The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum merit are: (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) the expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services rendered … . Here, the trial court properly determined that the … defendants performed services in good faith, that the plaintiff accepted those services, and that the … defendants expected to be compensated therefor. The court also properly determined that the … defendants provided sufficient evidence of the reasonable value of their services. The unsigned agreement furnished evidence of such value … . In addition, the … defendants presented proposals that they submitted to the plaintiff for payment in connection with additional work that they performed, invoices and proof of payments to subcontractors, and invoices and proof of payments to suppliers of materials and equipment. The fair and reasonable value of the … defendants’ services may be properly based on evidence concerning the amount that they billed the plaintiff for such services, and the amounts that subcontractors billed them for their services and for costs of supplies and equipment … .

Moreover, “[p]roof of damages may be based solely on oral testimony as long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs” … . The record demonstrates that the … defendants, who had 20 years of experience in construction and had built over 100 homes, had knowledge of the actual costs of the services being provided … . Therefore, the … defendants’ testimony provided further evidence of the reasonable value of the services performed … . Johnson v Robertson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06658, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

, ,

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

 

,

Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Which Was Alleged in the Pleadings

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in an action based upon the allegation defendant had “launched an instrument of harm,” thereby imposing liability in tort arising from a contract. Defendant demonstrated it did not launch and instrument of harm and plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in response. The court explained the applicable law, noting that defendant need only address the specific theory of contract-based liability which was raised in the pleadings:

“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 only exception alleged in the pleadings with respect to the defendant Wiley Engineering, P.C. (hereinafter Wiley), was that Wiley launched a force or instrument of harm … . Therefore, in moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, Wiley was only required to address this exception by demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm creating or exacerbating any allegedly dangerous condition … . Here, Wiley met its prima facie burden and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06580, 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

 

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