You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), the First Department explained the applicability of the “special facts doctrine” to the related fraud allegations. There was a defense verdict. The issue was raised on appeal by the plaintiffs because the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the special facts doctrine, an error the First Department deemed harmless. The court offered a clear description of the doctrine:

… [P]laintiffs claimed that defendants had a duty to disclose certain documents concerning alleged adverse contract information. The “special facts” doctrine holds that “absent a fiduciary relationship between parties, there is nonetheless a duty to disclose when one party’s superior knowledge of essential facts renders a transaction without disclosure inherently unfair” … . As a threshold matter, the doctrine requires satisfaction of a two-prong test: that the material fact was information peculiarly within the knowledge of one party and that the information was not such that could have been discovered by the other party through the exercise of ordinary intelligence … . Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06091, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

,

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined an elevator maintenance company (The Elevator Man) did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when the elevator free-fell three stories in September 2010. The maintenance contract with the elevator maintenance company had been cancelled for non-payment, but the company had subsequently agreed to do, and had done, emergency repairs when called to do so. Although there was evidence the elevator maintenance company was negligent re: repairs done in early 2010, applying the “Espinal” criteria, the First Department held there was no evidence the maintenance company “launched an instrument of harm,” the only available theory of liability:

If the issue were limited to whether The Elevator Man was negligent, a question of fact would preclude summary judgment. However, the issue is not that simple.

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

Where a contractor has entered into a contract to render services, it may only be held to have assumed a duty of care to nonparties to the contract in three situations:

“(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff relies on the inspection performed by The Elevator Man on January 14, 2010 in which it gave the elevator a “Satisfactory” rating, despite a “Cease Use” violation that had been issued on November 1, 2009, The Elevator Man was subject to the maintenance contract then in effect. To the extent plaintiff argues that The Elevator Man was negligent in the work it performed on May 26, 2010, any duty The Elevator Man had toward him could not be based on the terminated 2009 maintenance agreement; nevertheless, The Elevator Man continued to be subject to a more limited contract with the manager of the parking facility, in which it agreed to respond to emergency calls, upon payment of an agreed fee.

We find the rule set forth in Espinal to apply here. It is conceded that of the three possibilities listed in Espinal, only the first could provide a basis for liability to plaintiff: “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” (id. at 140). However, even accepting for purposes of this analysis that The Elevator Man negligently inspected the elevator on January 14, 2010 and negligently failed to correctly assess the condition of the elevator and necessary repair on May 26, 2010, it cannot be said to have launched a force or instrument of harm. That is, in failing to correctly inspect or repair the elevator, it did not create or exacerbate an unsafe condition. Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06044, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Agreement to Assist Spouse in Obtaining a Visa Did Not Render the Marriage a Sham and the Separation Agreement Unenforceable/Agreement to Pay for One-Half of a Jointly Held Business Could Be Severed from Any Arguably Unenforceable Portions of the Separation Agreement/Even Where a Marriage is Annulled as Void or Voidable, Equitable Distribution Rules Apply

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the provision in a separation agreement in which one spouse agreed to help the other obtain a visa did not render the marriage a sham and the separation agreement unenforceable. Therefore the provision of the separation agreement that one spouse pay the other one-half of the value of a jointly-owned business was enforceable. The Second Department noted that even if a portion of the agreement was not enforceable, the valid provisions could remain enforceable. The Second Department further noted that equitable distribution rules apply even when a marriage is annulled as void or voidable:

Although parties are usually free to chart their own contractual course, that is not the case in certain situations where public policy would be offended … . Further, as a general rule, illegal contracts are unenforceable … , and this includes marital agreements for visa sponsorship that unlawfully circumvent United States immigration laws … .

Here, the terms and conditions of the separation agreement ostensibly required the plaintiff to assist the defendant in obtaining a visa. Further, in an affidavit submitted in support of her motion, the plaintiff admitted that she stayed in the marriage longer than she wished so that the defendant could obtain an E-2 dependent visa. However, there is no proof that the marriage was a sham, or that any other tribunal or government agency had made such a determination.

More importantly, even if the Supreme Court was correct in determining that certain terms of the separation agreement are illegal and unenforceable, the terms directing the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for transferring her interest in the business to him would nevertheless be severable and enforceable … . Where an agreement consists of an unlawful objective in part and a lawful objective in part, the court may sever the illegal aspect and enforce the legal one, so long as the “illegal aspects are incidental to the legal aspects and are not the main objective of the agreement” … . Whether a contract is to be enforced in its entirety or is severable is generally a question of intent, “to be determined from the language employed by the parties, viewed in the light of the circumstances surrounding them at the time they contracted” … . Moreover, “[c]ourts will be particularly ready to sever the illegal components and enforce the other components of a contract where the injured party is less culpable and the other party would otherwise be unjustly enriched by using his own misconduct as a shield against otherwise legitimate claims” … . Here, the separation agreement contained an express provision that the doctrine of severability shall apply should any particular term of the agreement be deemed invalid or unenforceable.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we do not find that the main objective of the parties’ separation agreement was to compensate the plaintiff for remaining in the marriage and thereby helping the defendant obtain a visa (cf. Donnell v Stogel, 161 AD2d at 97). The separation agreement addressed various aspects of the parties’ marriage, including distribution of their marital assets. According to the plain language of the separation agreement, the $30,000 payment to the plaintiff constitutes compensation for the transfer of her 50% interest in the business that the parties co-owned at the time of the marriage. Notably, the parties agreed that, even if the visa sponsorship did not come to fruition, the defendant would still be obligated to pay the distribution of the value of the business.

It should be noted that, even if the marriage were proven to be a sham marriage, either party could have sought a divorce, a judgment declaring the nullity of a void marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 140), or an annulment of a voidable marriage (see id.), all of which mandate the equitable distribution of assets acquired during the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][a], [c]…). Absent a judicial finding, after a hearing, that the money to be transferred to the plaintiff was payment for spousal sponsorship of a visa and nothing more, which would be against public policy and thus unenforceable in court, the terms of the separation agreement dealing with the distribution of assets acquired during the marriage are enforceable, separate and apart from any unenforceable terms. Thus, the terms of the separation agreement governing the transfer of the previously co-owned business in exchange for $30,000 are severable from any terms of the separation agreement which may be unenforceable … . Lanza v Carbone, 2015 NY Slip Op 05917, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Electricity-Supplier (Con Edison) Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to a Shareholder in an Apartment Cooperative Who Fell in a Common Area During a Power Outage/Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge of the Cause of His Fall Was Fatal to the Lawsuit

The Second Department determined the electricity-supplier, Con Edison, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, a shareholder in an apartment cooperative, who fell in a common area of the building during a power outage. In addition, the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge re: the cause of his fall was fatal to the lawsuit:

The Court of Appeals has held that an electricity-supplying utility “is not answerable to the tenant of an apartment building injured in a common area as a result of [the utility’s] negligent failure to provide electric service as required by its agreement with the building owner” (Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399, 405; see Milliken & Co. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 469). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s status as a shareholder in the cooperative corporation that owned the building did not make him a party to the contract with Con Edison, such that Con Edison owed him a duty of care… . * * *

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Here, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not know why he fell, did not know whether he tripped or slipped, and had no memory of the fall. When he was asked if he knew why he fell, the injured plaintiff testified: “That’s speculation. I don’t know.” In addition, the building defendants submitted the deposition testimony of two witnesses who stated that the injured plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thus, the building defendants demonstrated that it was just as likely that the accident was caused by some factor other than poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, such as a misstep, a loss of balance, or intoxication, and thus “any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer conjecture” … . O’Connor v Metro Mgt. Dev., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05921, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that misrepresentations supported both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for fraud in the inducement. The facts of the case are laid out in the dissent and are not summarized here. The misrepresentations involved the alleged failure to disclose an audit prior to the sale of a company which, plaintiff alleged, induced plaintiff to pay more than the company was worth. The majority offered a clear explanation of the legal requirements for a distinct fraud (tort) cause of action which is not duplicative of the related breach of contract cause of action:

It is axiomatic that in order to state a claim for fraudulent inducement, “there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury” … . In the context of a contract case, the pleadings must allege misrepresentations of present fact, not merely misrepresentations of future intent to perform under the contract, in order to present a viable claim that is not duplicative of a breach of contract claim … . Moreover, these misrepresentations of present fact must be “collateral to the contract and [must have] induced the allegedly defrauded party to enter into the contract … . Therefore, “[a]s a general rule, to recover damages for tort in a contract matter, it is necessary that the plaintiff plead and prove a breach of duty distinct from, or in addition to, the breach of contract” … . * * *

… [The] representations were … warranted to be accurate at the time the contract was entered into and made for the purposes of inducing the plaintiffs to purchase those loans. They were designed to be relied on to arrive at an accurate value of the loans, and the value of the company being purchased here. These misrepresentations did not merely evince “an insincere promise of future performance [but were] instead . . . misrepresentation[s] of then present facts that were collateral to the contract, and thus plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in fraud” … .Wyle Inc. v ITT Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05877, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

,

Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Actual or Constructive Notice of Liquid on Floor—Question of Fact Whether Contract Food Service Launched and Instrument of Harm Such that the Food Service Contract Gave Rise to Tort Liability to Plaintiff

The First Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants in a slip and fall case. The complaint alleged that there was liquid on the floor of a women’s homeless shelter operated by defendant Camba.  The complaint further alleged that plaintiff frequently observed liquid on the floor after defendant food service, Whitson’s, delivered prepared food. Plaintiff also alleged she had complained about the condition to Camba’s maintenance staff. The First Department found the affidavit of Camba’s employee did not demonstrate the absence of actual or constructive notice (no evidence of the cleaning schedule was presented).  The First Department also found there was a question of fact whether Whitson’s launched an instrument of harm, which would support tort liability for plaintiff’s fall arising from Whitson’s food service contract with Camba:

Camba failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the floor. Although Camba’s employee testified that she completed her inspection of the building about an hour before the accident, and that it was her usual custom and practice to pass by the area where plaintiff claims she fell, she could not recall whether she inspected the accident location itself that afternoon when she made her rounds … . Her affidavit stating that she did not observe a slippery substance or liquid on the hallway floor during her daily rounds did not satisfy Camba’s burden of showing it had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition alleged and that it did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit Camba employees to discover and remedy it … . Camba also failed to present evidence regarding the shelter’s cleaning schedule, and Camba’s employee lacked personal knowledge regarding the shelter’s maintenance … .

Even if Camba had met its initial burden, the record shows that there exists a question of fact as to whether it had notice of a recurring condition. Plaintiff’s testimony that she frequently would see liquid leaking from Whitson’s Food’s delivery crates at the accident location, and that she complained to Camba’s maintenance staff about the liquid, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to a recurring condition … .

Whitson’s Food, which had a contract with Camba to provide cooked meals for the shelter, failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by dropping liquid on the floor when it delivered food to the shelter on the day of the accident … . The deposition testimony from an employee of Whitson’s Food was insufficient to show that Whitson’s Food did not cause or create the liquid condition, since he lacked personal knowledge as to whether the floor was clean after Whitson’s Food delivered the food … . Jackson v Whitson’s Food Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05889, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

In the Context of a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, the Statute of Frauds Barred Actions Stemming from Advising Defendants in the Actual Negotiation of a Business Opportunity, But Did Not Bar Actions Stemming from Advising Defendants Whether to Negotiate a Business Opportunity

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined, in the context of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the statute of frauds did not bar the causes of action which stemmed from plaintiff’s advising defendants whether to negotiate a business opportunity, as opposed to the causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s advising defendants in the actual negotiation of a business opportunity (which were barred by the statute of frauds).

Here we are specifically concerned with General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10), which “appl[ies] to a contract implied in fact or in law to pay reasonable compensation” and which provides that “[e]very agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking . . . [i]s a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in . . . negotiating the purchase . . . of any real estate or interest therein, or of a business opportunity, business, its good will, inventory, fixtures or an interest therein . . . .” … . * * *

… [T]he allegations with respect [some of the projects] could be construed as seeking recovery for work performed so as to inform defendants whether to partake in certain business opportunities, that is, whether to negotiate. (emphasis added) To the extent the causes of action are based on such allegations, they are not barred by the statute of frauds.  JF Capital Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05622, CtApp 7-1-15

 

,

Company Which Contracted with County to Maintain Traffic Signals Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged a Malfunctioning Traffic Signal Caused an Accident in Which She Was Injured

Plaintiff alleged a traffic accident was the result of a malfunctioning traffic signal.  The defendant county had entered a traffic-signal maintenance contract with defendant Welsbach.  The Second Department determined that the contract between the county and Welsbach did not give rise to tort liability re: defendant Welsbach in favor of the plaintiff because the contract was not such that it displaced the county’s duty to maintain the traffic signal. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . Exceptions to this general rule exist “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] 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” … . Welsbach established, prima facie, that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, since its limited maintenance contract with the County did not displace the County’s duty to maintain the traffic signal at the subject intersection in a reasonably safe condition and it did not launch an instrument of harm … . Watt v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 05668, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the Right to Bring a Tort Action Was Included, Did Not, Under New York Law, Include the Right to Bring a Tort Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the assignment of a note, which was silent about whether the assignment included the right to bring a tort action, did not include such a right. Therefore the Second Circuit’s certified question whether the assignee of the note had standing to sue Morgan Stanley for fraud was answered in the negative. The case arose out of the collapse in value of sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities. The court explained the relevant New York law:

To be sure, fraud claims are freely assignable in New York … . It has long been held, however, that the right to assert a fraud claim related to a contract or note does not automatically transfer with the respective contract or note … . Thus, where an assignment of fraud or other tort claims is intended in conjunction with the conveyance of a contract or note, there must be some language — although no specific words are required — that evinces that intent and effectuates the transfer of such rights … . Without a valid assignment, “only the . . . assignor may rescind or sue for damages for fraud and deceit” because “the representations were made to it and it alone had the right to rely upon them” … . Commonwealth of Pa. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05591, CtApp 6-30-15

 

,

Unambiguous Language in Rider Covered Loss Caused by Hackers Gaining Unauthorized Access to the Insured’s Computers, Not Loss Caused by Fraudulent Billing Entries by Authorized Users

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the rider in a financial institution bond covered loss caused by hackers gaining access to the insured’s computer system, not loss caused by the entry of fraudulent billing information into the computer system by authorized users.  Here fraudulent medical claims made by authorized users of the computer system cost the insured (Universal) $18 million. The language of the relevant rider was deemed unambiguous:

… [W]e conclude that it unambiguously applies to losses incurred from unauthorized access to Universal’s computer system, and not to losses resulting from fraudulent content submitted to the computer system by authorized users. The term “fraudulent” is not defined in the Rider, but it refers to deceit and dishonesty (see Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [10th ed 1993]). While the Rider also does not define the terms “entry” and “change,” the common definition of the former includes “the act of entering” or “the right or privilege of entering, access,” and the latter means “to make different, alter” (id.). In the Rider, “fraudulent” modifies “entry” or “change” of electronic data or computer program, meaning it qualifies the act of entering or changing data or a computer program. Thus, the Rider covers losses resulting from a dishonest entry or change of electronic data or computer program, constituting what the parties agree would be “hacking” of the computer system. The Rider’s reference to “fraudulent” does not also qualify what is actually acted upon, namely the “electronic data” or “computer program” itself. The intentional word placement of “fraudulent” before “entry” and “change” manifests the parties’ intent to provide coverage for a violation of the integrity of the computer system through deceitful and dishonest access.

Other language in the Rider confirms that the Rider seeks to address unauthorized access. First, the Rider is captioned “Computer Systems,” and the specific language at issue is found under the subtitle “Computer Systems Fraud.” These headings clarify that the Rider’s focus is on the computer system qua computer system. Second, under “EXCLUSIONS,” the Rider exempts from coverage losses resulting directly or indirectly from fraudulent instruments “which are used as source documentation in the preparation of Electronic Data, or manually keyed into a data terminal.” If the parties intended to cover fraudulent content, such as the billing fraud involved here, then there would be no reason to exclude fraudulent content contained in documents used to prepare electronic data, or manually keyed into a data terminal. Universal Am. Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2015 NY Slip Op 05516, CtApp 6-25-15

 

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