You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

Plaintiff Not Competent When Release Was Signed/Statute of Limitations Tolled by Plaintiff’s Mental Disability

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly concluded the release signed by the plaintiff was not enforceable, because the plaintiff was not competent at the time it was signed, and the statute of limitations was tolled by plaintiff’s mental disability. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury when he was struck by a car in 1991. A few months later plaintiff signed a release provided by an insurance adjuster in return for $5000.  The case languished for years and Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case in 2014. The court explained the relevant law:

With respect to the release signed by plaintiff, “the burden of proving incompetence rests upon the party asserting incapacity to enter into an agreement [and], to prevail, plaintiff was required to establish that [his] ‘mind was so affected as to render [him] wholly and absolutely incompetent to comprehend and understand the nature of the transaction'” … . The incapacity must be shown to exist at the time the pertinent document was executed … . Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the toll for “insanity” provided by CPLR 208 is narrowly interpreted, the concept of insanity is “equated with unsoundness of mind” … and encompasses “only those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . The mental incapacity must exist at or be caused by the accident and continue during the relevant time … . Lynch v Carlozzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04893, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Question of Fact Raised Whether an Indemnification Clause on a Scaffolding Inspection Tag Created an Enforceable (Unsigned) Indemnification Contract

In a case stemming from plaintiff’s fall from an allegedly improperly installed scaffold, a question of fact had been raised whether a tag on the scaffolding, which included an indemnification clause, evidenced an enforceable indemnification agreement:

“[A] contract may be valid even if it is not signed by the party to be charged, provided its subject matter does not implicate a statute—such as the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701)—that imposes such a requirement” … . “[A]n unsigned contract may be enforceable, provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound” … . “[I]n many instances the issue of whether or when an indemnification agreement came into being in the absence of a signed document will present a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact” … .

Here, in support of their respective motion and cross motion, [the parties] failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the scaffold inspection tag …, which included an indemnification clause, related to the scaffold employed by the injured plaintiff at the time of the accident and, if so, whether these parties’ words and deeds demonstrated their intent to be bound by the terms of thereof … . Murphy v Eagle Scaffolding, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04823, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall

In determining the management agreement with a hospital did not give rise to tort liability for a slip and fall on the hospital premises, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are 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 or creates or exacerbates a hazardous condition; (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 … . “As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars” … .

Here, the plaintiffs alleged that Sodexo [the building manager] maintained and controlled the premises. Sodexo established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that the plaintiffs were not parties to the management agreement and thus, it owed the injured plaintiff no duty of care …; that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the Hospital’s duty to maintain the premises safely …; and that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sperling v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04840, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a building manager (Milford) who hired a window washing service (Red Cap) could be liable for injury to a pedestrian (plaintiff) struck by a piece of window-washing equipment which fell. Although Red Cap was an independent contractor, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiff because the work it hired Red Cap to do was inherently dangerous (in the absence of warning signs and pedestrian barriers) and whether the building management services contract between Milford and the building-owner (S & P) was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive to create a duty running to plaintiff. The court noted that the property owners were not liable because ownership and control of the building (on the property) had been transferred (to the building-owner):

Milford established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that Red Cap was an independent contractor and, thus, it could not be held liable for Red Cap’s negligent acts …, and that, as S & P’s contractual managing agent, it owed no duty to the plaintiff … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff because it knew or had reason to know that the work it hired Red Cap to perform was inherently dangerous to pedestrians in the absence of warning signs or barriers on the sidewalk below the window-washing apparatus …, and whether the property management services agreement with S & P was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive so as support a duty running to the plaintiff … . Baek v Red Cap Servs., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04794, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

An Unconditional Guaranty of Payment of a Another’s Obligations Is Enforceable by Summary Judgment In Lieu of a Complaint In New York, Even In the Face of an Allegation the Underlying Judgment Was the Result of Collusion and Fraud

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined an unconditional guaranty (re: payment of corporate debts) was a proper basis for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, notwithstanding defendant’s (unsupported) allegation the underlying judgment was the result of collusion and fraud.  An unconditional guaranty is enforceable in New York, even where it is alleged the guaranty itself was the product of fraud:

Guarantees that contain language obligating the guarantor to payment without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims, i.e., guarantees that are “absolute and unconditional,” have been consistently upheld by New York courts * * *.

This Court has acknowledged the application of these absolute guarantees even to claims of fraudulent inducement in the execution of the guaranty … .* * *

Here, defendant personally guaranteed the obligations owed by Agra Canada under the Purchase Agreement, as well as obligations owed by Agra USA. Moreover, defendant specifically agreed that his “liability under this Guaranty shall be absolute and unconditional irrespective of (1) any lack of validity or enforceability of the agreement; . . . or (iv) any other circumstance which might otherwise constitute a defense available to, or a discharge of, the Seller (Agra Canada) or a guarantor.” By its plain terms, in broad, sweeping and unequivocal language, the Guaranty forecloses any challenge to the enforceability and validity of the documents which establish defendant’s liability for payments arising under the Purchase Agreement, as well as to any other possible defense to his liability for the obligations of the Agra businesses. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v Navarro, 2015 NY Slip Op 04753, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, ,

Note Which Was Extended and Consolidated with Other Debts Was Not Extinguished by the Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)—the Agreement, Therefore, Did Not Commence the Running of the Statute of Limitations for an Action on the Note

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) did not extinguish a note which was extended and consolidated under the agreement. Therefore the statute of limitations for action on the note did not commence running when the agreement was entered:

We agree with plaintiff that the plain language of the CEMA does not support Supreme Court’s conclusion that the CEMA extinguished the 1992 note and thereby recommenced the running of the statute of limitations. “It is well established that a subsequent note does not discharge the original indebtedness secured unless there is an express agreement between the parties” … . Defendant points to no express agreement and cites no authority supporting its claim that the CEMA operated to extinguish the 1992 note. Rather, the record makes clear that defendant still owed approximately $169,000 on the 1992 note at the time that the CEMA was executed. That debt was consolidated with two other debts into a new note and the mortgage liens were “coordinated, consolidated, combined and extended” to form a single lien. “Where, as here, balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and CEMAs are executed to consolidate the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist” … . Bechard v Monty’s Bay Recreation, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04711, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, ,

Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant

The Second Department determined plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof at trial. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence re: the installation of foam insulation. The contract called for the installation to conform to the manufacturer’s specifications.  The negligence cause of action alleged the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner. Because defendant would not have been prejudiced, Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiffs to amend the breach of contract cause of action to allege the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner.  Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) for judgment in their favor on the breach of contract cause of action should have been granted. The negligence cause of action, which essentially duplicated the breach of contract cause of action, should have been dismissed. With respect the post-trial motion to amend the pleadings, the Second Department wrote:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence adduced at trial. “Whether to permit a party to amend a pleading is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court and, on review, the Appellate Division” … . Absent prejudice, courts are free, pursuant to CPLR 3025(c), to permit the amendment of pleadings, even after trial … . Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just (see CPLR 3025[b]). “This favorable treatment applies even if the amendment substantially alters the theory of recovery” … .

Here, the proposed amendment to the breach of contract cause of action does not alter the theory of recovery. The complaint alleged that the defendant failed to perform the work in a good and workmanlike manner, albeit in the context of the cause of action alleging negligence. Furthermore, the defendant, who has the burden of establishing prejudice …, failed to assert that it would be prejudiced by permitting the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence adduced at trial that the work was not performed in a good and workmanlike manner … . Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04615, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

Complaint Sufficiently Alleged a Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment—an Action Which Only Applies in the Absence of an Express Agreement

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action because, pursuant to the “doctrine of definiteness,”  the terms of the purported contract were too indefinite and uncertain to be enforceable.  However, Supreme Court should not have dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action. The court noted that unjust enrichment, or quasi contract, only applies in the absence of an express agreement and is really not a contract, but rather an equitable obligation. Here plaintiff alleged that defendant took possession of millions of dollars worth of watches and refused to pay for them. Therefore, the complaint alleged the elements of unjust enrichment—(1) defendant was enriched at (2) plaintiff’s expense and (3) it is against equity to allow the defendant to keep what is sought to be recovered:

The doctrine of definiteness, well established in contract law, “means that a court cannot enforce a contract unless it is able to determine what in fact the parties have agreed to” … .

“[T]o recover for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that (1) the [defendant] was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’s] expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the defendant] to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … . Such quasi contract only applies in the absence of an express agreement, and is not really a contract at all, but rather an equitable obligation imposed in order to prevent a party’s unjust enrichment … . Here, the complaint alleges that [defendant] received a benefit when he received luxury watches worth millions of dollars from [plaintiff’s] predecessor in interest, “with the understanding and reasonable expectation that [defendant] would pay for those goods,” and that [defendant] was “personally enriched by taking the millions of dollars worth of luxury watches, while failing and refusing to pay for said merchandise.” Such allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action alleging unjust enrichment … . UETA Latinamerica, Inc. v Zafir, 2015 NY Slip Op 04633, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

Lease and Lease Amendment Invalid Even Though Approved by County Legislature—County Charter Required that All Contracts with the County Be Executed by the County Executive—The County Executive Signed the Lease But Not the Lease Amendment (Which Was Integral to the Agreement)—Lease Required All Modifications to Be In Writing, So Signing the Lease Amendment Was Not a “Purely Ministerial Act”—A Municipal Contract Which Does Not Comply with Statutory Requirements or Local Law Is Invalid and Unenforceable

The Second Department determined that a lease and a lease amendment were invalid and unenforceable, even though the documents had been approved by the Nassau County Legislature.  The Nassau County Charter required that any contract entered into by the county be executed by the County Executive. The County Executive signed the lease, but not the lease amendment (which was integral to the final agreement). Execution of the lease amendment was not a “purely ministerial act” because the lease required that any modifications be in writing:

” A municipal contract which does not comply with statutory requirements or local law is invalid and unenforceable'” … . Here, the County demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the lease amendment, which was integral to the final agreement between the parties, was not executed by the County Executive or his authorized designee, as required by Nassau County Charter § 2206. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the execution of the lease amendment by the County Executive or his designee was not a purely ministerial act in light of the express language in the lease requiring any modifications thereto to be in writing … . Further, the express terms of the proposed lease provided that it could not be modified “except by a writing subscribed by both parties” (emphasis added), and the lease amendment expressly contemplated that it would be effective when “last executed by the parties.” Since the lease amendment was integral to the final agreement between the parties, and the proposed lease and lease amendment together constituted the entirety of the parties’ understanding of their obligations, the County established, prima facie, that the County Executive’s determination not to execute the lease amendment rendered the proposed lease unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds between the parties … . County of Nassau v Grand Baldwin Assoc., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 04445, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Ambiguity Should Have Been Resolved Against the Insurer

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the ambiguity in the supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement about whether a snowmobile was a covered “motor vehicle” should have been resolved against the insurer. “We find that the policy, when read as a whole, is ambiguous as to whether the term “motor vehicle” in the SUM endorsement refers to the snowmobile, the only vehicle covered by the policy. Contrary to State Farm’s contention and the Supreme Court’s determination, this ambiguity must be resolved ‘against the insurer and in favor of coverage’ … , without reference to the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Law.”  Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 04493, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

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