You are here: / Contract Law
,

Purchasers Entitled to Return of Downpayment Under Terms of the Purchase Contract and Pursuant to General Obligations Law 5-1311—Home Damaged by Hurricane Sandy Before Appraisal by Lender

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the purchasers’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint seeking return of the downpayment.  The contract for sale of real property was contingent upon purchasers receiving a commitment for a loan.  The commitments received by the purchasers were contingent upon a property appraisal.  The house was damaged in Hurricane Sandy and the lender, based upon the post-Sandy appraisal, would not issue the loan. The Second Department determined the purchasers were entitled to a return of their downpayment under the terms of the contract and pursuant to General Obligations Law 5-1311:

“For more than a century it has been well settled in this State that a vendee who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse, cannot recover the down payment” … . Where, however, the obligations of a purchaser under a contract of sale are contingent upon the issuance of a firm financing commitment by a lender, a purchaser may be entitled to recover the down payment if he or she was unable to secure a firm commitment in accordance with the terms of the contract … .

Here, the contract of sale was conditioned upon the issuance of a written commitment from an institutional lender. The contract of sale expressly provided that “a commitment conditioned on the Institutional Lender’s approval of an appraisal shall not be deemed a Commitment’ hereunder until an appraisal is approved.” Accordingly, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were unable to secure a firm commitment in accordance with the contract of sale, and that they were entitled to the return of their down payment pursuant to the terms of the contract … . In addition, the plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, that they were entitled to a return of their down payment by virtue of General Obligations Law § 5-1311, since a “material part” of the property was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy before legal title or possession of the property could be transferred (General Obligations Law § 5-1311[1][a][1]). Walsh v Catalano, 2015 NY Slip Op 05468, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Lost Profits Sufficiently Proven in Breach of Contract Action—Criteria Explained

In affirming the judgment, the Second Department explained the criteria for the award of lost profits as damages in a breach of contract action:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging breach of contract, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it sustained “actual damages as a natural and probable consequence” of the defendant’s breach … . Where the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for lost profits, such profits must also be “within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into” and, even though required to be proven with reasonable certainty, damages “resulting from the loss of future profits are often an approximation” … . Here, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the evidence and credible testimony adduced at trial demonstrated that the plaintiff incurred actual damages due to the defendant’s breach of the agreement … . The plaintiff’s witness testified that he determined the lost profits for the plaintiff by subtracting the expenses from the revenue, which would have been generated [if the contract had not been breached]. The evidence produced by the plaintiff provided a reasonably reliable foundation upon which to calculate the plaintiff’s damages … . Family Operating Corp. v Young Cab Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05437, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, , ,

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed (for failure to state a cause of action) the negligence cause of action, should not have dismissed the General Business Law 349 cause of action, and properly denied the motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract cause of action. The court succinctly described the elements of the three causes of action (facts not described in the decision):

To prevail on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. “Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” … . * * *

To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, the complaint must allege that ” a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . * * *

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract are the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and damages … . MVB Collision, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05453, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Unambiguous Language In a Rider and an Exclusion In a Financial Institution Bond Precluded Coverage of Losses Stemming from the “Madoff” Ponzi Scheme

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and determined a rider and an exclusion of coverage in a financial institution bond applied to the “Madoff” Ponzi scheme. The losses associated with the Ponzi scheme were therefore not covered by the bond.  The rider covered loss resulting from dishonest acts of named persons (including Madoff) “solely” with respect to such persons’ duties as an “outside investment advisor.” Because the losses stemmed from Madoff’s hybrid duties as both an “outside investment advisor” and a “securities broker,” the rider did not cover the losses.  In addition, a specific exclusion from coverage included losses caused by the dishonest acts of a non-employee securities broker (i.e., Madoff). Jacobson Family Invs., Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2015 NY Slip Op 05273, 1st Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Contract Merged with the Deed and Any Rights Afforded Purchaser by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act Were Extinguished Upon Transfer of Title

After transfer of title, the purchaser alleged that the property had been damaged between the execution of the purchase contract and the transfer of title. The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded the seller. The property was sold “as is” and the contract did not survive the transfer of title.  Any rights granted purchaser under the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (UVPRA), which allows for rescission in some cases, were extinguished upon the transfer of title:

Unless a land sale contract expressly provides otherwise, a vendor bears the risk of loss until legal title or possession has been transferred to the purchaser … . However, a contract for the sale of real property merges with the deed and, as a result, the terms of the contract do not survive transfer of title unless the parties clearly specify otherwise … . Here, the terms and conditions of the auction provided that the sale would be governed by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (hereinafter UVPRA), which provides a purchaser with the right to rescind the sale contract or recover money paid toward the purchase price under certain circumstances (see General Obligations Law § 5-1311 [1] [a]). However, there was no indication that plaintiff’s rights under the UVPRA would survive transfer of title. In fact, the terms and conditions provided that the property would be sold “as is” and that a purchaser would not have recourse against defendant for any defects stemming from the sale. Therefore, any rights that plaintiff may have asserted under the UVPRA were extinguished when title was transferred to plaintiff. Burkins & Foley Trucking & Stor., Inc. v County of Albany, 2015 NY Slip Op 05252, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Florida law on restrictive covenants re: non-solicitation of customers by a former employee violated the public policy of New York State.  Therefore the choice-of-law provision in the employee agreement was unenforceable.  The Court of Appeals went on to find that, applying New York law, questions of fact precluded a determination whether the non-solicitation agreement at issue should be enforced.  With respect to the public policy violation, the court explained:

… Florida law requires a party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant only to make a prima facie showing that the restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, at which point the burden shifts to the other party to show that the restraint is overbroad or unnecessary (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). If the latter showing is made, the court is required to “modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect” the employer's legitimate business interests (Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). In contrast to this focus solely on the employer's business interests, under New York's three-prong test, “[a] restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public. A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . Whereas Florida shifts the burden of proof after the employer demonstrates its business interests (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]), New York requires the employer to prove all three prongs of its test before the burden shifts … . Further, Florida law explicitly prohibits courts from considering the harm or hardship to the former employee (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [g] [1]). This directly conflicts with New York's requirement that courts consider, as one of three mandatory factors, whether the restraint “impose[s] undue hardship on the employee” … .

Additionally, under Florida law, courts are required to construe restrictive covenants in favor of protecting the employer's interests, and may not use any rules of contract interpretation that would require the construction of a restrictive covenant narrowly or against the restraint or drafter (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [h]). In contrast, New York law provides that “[c]ovenants not to compete should be strictly construed because of the 'powerful considerations of public policy which militate against sanctioning the loss of a [person's] livelihood'” … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04876, CtApp 6-11-15

 

,

In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, in an action involving residential mortgage-backed securities, determined that a cause of action based upon breach of representations and warranties accrued on the date the contract was executed. A few years after the parties executed a mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) and a pooling a servicing agreement (PSA) borrowers began to default, resulting in hundreds of millions in losses.  Upon investigation it was determined that the underlying mortgage loans failed to comply with the defendant’s representations and warranties about the borrowers’ incomes, occupancy status and existing debts.  The Court of Appeals held that the breach of the representations and warranties occurred when the MLPA was executed on March 28, 2006.  The action was commenced on the last day of the limitations period (on March 28, 2012), but was untimely because the contractual conditions precedent to suit had not been complied with as of that date. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s refusal to cure or repurchase after notification in January, 2012, breached a second contract and started the six-year statute running from that point. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s repurchase obligation was not a valid agreement “to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date…”.  “[Defendant’s] cure or repurchase obligation could not reasonably be viewed as a distinct promise of future performance. It was dependent on, and indeed derivative of, [defendant’s] representations and warranties, which did not survive the closing and were breached, if at all, on that date…” . ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04873, CtApp 6-11-15

 

,

Townhouse Residents, Members of a Community Homeowners’ Association, Entered an Implied Contract to Pay a Proportionate Share of the Fees for Authorized and Necessary Services in Connection with the Maintenance of the Townhouse Facilities

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants (townhouse residents) had entered an implied contract to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining the facilities. The defendants had refused to pay membership fees after a dispute with other residents arose.  The Third Department, applying the “business judgment rule,” determined the fees assessed by the plaintiffs were for authorized and necessary services provided by the plaintiff:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has made clear that an implied contract for a community homeowners’ association “includes the obligation to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining . . . facilities and services, not merely the reasonable value of those actually used by any particular resident” … . We review plaintiff’s action in undertaking such expenditures under the business judgment rule, which, in the absence of “claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct,” is limited to an inquiry of “whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” … . Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Assn., Inc. v Kapsokefalos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04905, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

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