You are here: / Contract Law
,

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

 

,

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

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was Fraudulently Induced to Sign a Release—Relevant Law Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether plaintiff was fraudulently induced to sign a release re: a potential personal-injury action. The release was signed three days after the accident when the plaintiff was still on pain medication and it was alleged the insurance adjuster told her the offered funds were for plaintiff’s “inconvenience” and not to compensate for her injuries.  The court explained relevant law:

” A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law'” … . “Generally, a valid release that is clear and unambiguous on its face constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release absent fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, mutual mistake or duress'” … .

“A signed release shifts the burden of going forward . . . to the [plaintiff] to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release'” … . “A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release due to fraudulent inducement must establish the basic elements of fraud, namely a representation of a material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation that it was false when made, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury'” … . Moreover, there is a requirement that a release covering both known and unknown injuries be ” fairly and knowingly made'” … . Powell v Adler, 2015 NY Slip Op 04466, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Parol Evidence Demonstrated What Appeared to Be a Contract Was Not—There Was No Meeting of the Minds Re: the Consideration for the Contract

The Third Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined extrinsic evidence should have been considered on the issue whether a contract was ever formed, i.e., whether there was a “meeting of the minds.” Based upon that extrinsic evidence, the breach of contract complaint was dismissed by the Third Department. The defendant argued that the contract was premised upon the understanding plaintiff would execute a power of attorney, which plaintiff refused to do. The parol evidence, emails, demonstrated that defendant agreed to the terms of the contract in return for the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff.  The power of attorney was the consideration for the contract. Therefore, the parol evidence demonstrated no contract was ever formed:

In order “‘[t]o create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms’ and consideration” … . Defendant is not arguing that a valid agreement between the parties included an unstated commitment by plaintiff to execute the power of attorney; instead, she is asserting that she proposed an agreement upon that understanding, but that there was never a meeting of the minds on the issue sufficient to give rise to a valid agreement. Accordingly, she was entitled to use parol evidence “to show that what appears to be a contractual obligation is, in fact, no obligation at all”… . Libasci v Singares, 2015 NY Slip Op 04357, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

, ,

Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid a Fee to Participate in the Basketball Game In Which He Was Injured

Plaintiff paid a fee to participate in a basketball league and signed a release of liability.  He was injured during a game when his hand went through the glass of a door behind a basketball hoop. The defendants sought permission to amend their answer to assert the defense of release and Supreme Court allowed the amendment. The Second Department determined the motion for leave to amend the answer should have been denied because the affirmative defense was “patently devoid of merit.” General Obligations Law 5-326 nullifies any such release where the owner or operator of a sports facility charges a fee for use of the facility. Falzone v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04273, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

[General Obligations Law 5-326 provides: “Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”]

 

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