You are here: / Contract Law
,

Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court

The First Department, in an extensive decision, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the shared-fee arrangements among attorneys were unambiguous and must be enforced as written, without reference to extrinsic evidence. The underlying personal injury case eventually settled for $8 million.  Along the way, plaintiff’s attorney, Menkes, entered into agreements with two attorneys for assistance with the case. Most of the decision addresses the agreement with an attorney, Golomb, concerning mediation and settlement negotiations. If the mediation resulted in a settlement, Golomb was entitled to 12% of the attorney’s fees.  If further work, beyond the mediation, were required, Golomb was entitled to 40% of the attorney’s fees. Menkes argued that, although the mediation session did not result in a settlement, the mediation was a “process” which continued beyond the initial session culminating in a settlement. The majority held that the term “mediation,” pursuant to the language of the contract, encompassed only the one session.  Once that session ended without a settlement, the 40% shared-fee-arrangement kicked in:

The issue before us is one of simple contract interpretation. Under well established precedent, agreements are to be generally construed in accord with the parties’ intent … . The best evidence of the parties’ intent is “what they say in their writing” … . “[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” … . This rule is particularly applicable where the parties are sophisticated and are negotiating at arm’s length … . Language in a written agreement is deemed to be clear and unambiguous where it is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning or interpretation … . Finally, “[e]xtrinsic evidence may not be introduced to create an ambiguity in an otherwise clear document” … .

Here, as the dissent agrees, the language of the contract is unambiguous. Menkes argues that she interpreted the term “mediation” to constitute an ongoing process that would not be limited to a single session but rather would continue until an impasse or other termination had occurred. However, the assertion by a party to a contract that its terms mean something to him or her “where it is otherwise clear, unequivocal and understandable when read in connection with the whole contract” is not sufficient to make a contract ambiguous so as to require a court to divine its meaning … . The specific fee language that Menkes now claims supports her position was added to the agreement at her request. She takes the untenable position that she was never advised that the mediation reached an impasse or had been terminated. Yet despite the fact that the agreement went through several revisions, neither party saw fit to add any language to that effect. Both parties to the agreement are attorneys and thus know the importance of precision in the words used … . These clear terms, under these circumstances, need no interpretation by the court. Marin v Constitution Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04225, 1st Dept 5-19-15

 

, ,

A Conditional Judgment May Be Rendered On the Issue of Contractual Indemnity—The Party Seeking Contractual Indemnity Must Be Free from Negligence

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when he fell from a ladder. The construction manager commenced a third-party action against the general contractor seeking contractual indemnification in the event the construction manager is liable to the plaintiff,. The Second Department noted that a ” ‘court may render a conditional judgment on the issue of contractual indemnity, pending determination of the primary action so that the indemnitee may obtain the earliest possible determination as to the extent to which he or she may expect to be reimbursed’ … . The party seeking contractual indemnification must establish that it was free from negligence and that it may be held liable solely by virtue of statutory or vicarious liability …”. Arriola v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04079, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging an act of deception in an online business promotion.  Defendants “offered to provide to visitors to their website who entered their email address a $1 coupon toward the purchase of their products and further promotional materials.” The complaint alleged the members of the class provided their email addresses but never received a coupon. The Second Department determined the complaint, which alleged breach of contract and a violation of General Business Law 349, was properly dismissed. Because the website indicated the supply of coupons was limited, there was no clearcut “offer” which could form a contract upon acceptance. The online promotion constituted only an “invitation for offers.” Because of the disclaimers, the promotion was not “deceptive” within the meaning of General Business Law 349. Nor did the plaintiff suffer any “actual injury” within the meaning of General Business Law 349:

…[T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the online promotion did not constitute an offer. Rather, it constituted only an invitation for offers, in light of the fact that the promotion expressly stated that the supply of coupons was “limited.” In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret the promotional materials under the circumstances herein … . The record thus showed as a matter of law that the promotion did not create the power of acceptance for consumers and, consequently, no unilateral contract was formed… . * * *

[Re: General Business Law 349], in addition to showing that the conduct was consumer oriented, “[a] prima facie case requires . . . a showing that [the] defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . “Whether a representation or an omission, the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … . A plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an actual injury, as a result of the deceptive act or practice… . …

…[T]he defendants … showed … that the plaintiff did not suffer any “actual injury,” for purposes of the General Business Law § 349 cause of action. To recover damages under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff need not prove intent to defraud or justifiable reliance … . The plaintiff may not “set[ ] forth deception as both act and injury” … . Here, the record showed as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered no actual injury, apart from the alleged deceptive act itself … . Amalfitano v NBTY, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04077, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Loss Occasioned by Bankruptcy Proceedings in Mexico

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined that the “bankruptcy” exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy applied to court proceedings in Mexico and the insurer was therefore entitled to disclaim coverage for the related loss to plaintiff.  The core issue was the meaning of “bankruptcy.”  The plaintiff argued the term referred to a final adjudication of bankruptcy. But the court held the definition was much broader, and included the ongoing court proceedings in Mexico.  The fact that the plaintiff and defendant disagreed about the definition of “bankruptcy” did not render the policy-contract ambiguous.  Applying the plaintiff’s narrow definition would have rendered other provisions of the policy-contract superfluous:

We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s definition of bankruptcy (a final judgment of reorganization or liquidation) is overly narrow. Bankruptcy is generally understood to include being under the judicial protection of a bankruptcy court – or, according to dictionary definition – “a statutory procedure by which a (usu[ally] insolvent) debtor obtains financial relief and undergoes a judicially supervised reorganization or liquidation. . . for the benefit of creditors” (Black’s Law Dictionary 175 [10th ed 2014]; see Compact Oxford English Dictionary 934-935 [2d ed 1999][same]).

Plaintiff contends that since the parties have conflicting interpretations of the term “bankruptcy,” the policy must be ambiguous on this point, and points out that settled principles of interpretation of insurance contracts require resolution of any ambiguity in favor of the insured … . However, “provisions in a contract are not ambiguous merely because the parties interpret them differently” … . Here, common understanding supports interpreting the term bankruptcy as the court proceeding in which the debtor is afforded judicial protection while it reorganizes or liquidates.

Further, settled law requires that the terms of a contract be read in context … . Plaintiff’s definition of bankruptcy, i.e. the state of having been declared bankrupt, would render the accompanying alternatives in Section 4.12 of the policy (insolvency and financial default) superfluous. The redundancy can be eliminated only by accepting defendant’s definition, an interpretation that gives meaning to every “sentence, clause, and word of [the] contract of insurance” … . CT Inv. Mgt. Co., LLC v Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04051, 1st Dept 5-12-15

 

,

120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended by Stipulation

The Fourth Department determined the 120-day time limit for making summary judgment motions (after the filing of a note of issue) was properly extended by stipulation.  The dissent felt that such a stipulation was invalid because it violated public policy: “While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the court was not required to accept the express stipulation of the parties to extend the 120-day deadline in CPLR 3212, we note that the court in fact did so in advance of the motion … . Moreover, unlike our dissenting colleague, we do not view the timing requirements applicable to motions for summary judgment as a matter of public policy that may not be affirmatively waived by a party …”. Bennett v St. John’s Home & St. John’s Health Care Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03952, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations Sufficiently Pled/Disclaimers and Disclosures Did Not Preclude Claim of Fraud

The First Department determined a cause of action for fraud against Merrill Lynch had been sufficiently pled.  The underlying agreement related to credit default obligations (CDO’s).  The court noted that an unjust enrichment cause of action is not viable when the lawsuit is based on a written agreement:

…[The] factual allegations provide sufficient details to inform the …defendants … of the alleged fraudulent conduct, namely that the CDO was secretly designed by an undisclosed hedge fund, Magnetar, which was secretly placing massive short bets against the very same deals it was sponsoring. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiff cannot establish the element of reasonable reliance (an element of both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment) as a result of the disclosures and disclaimers for the Auriga CDO. We cannot agree.

The offering circular states, “All or most of the Collateral Debt Securities Acquired by the Issuer . . . will be Acquired from a portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities selected by the Collateral Manager . . . .” If Magnetar rather than 250 Capital was doing the selecting, the statement in the offering circular was misleading. The identity of the person selecting the collateral was material: The offering circular says, “The performance of the portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities depends heavily on the skills of the Collateral Manager in analyzing and selecting the Collateral Debt Securities.” * * *

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the disclaimers and disclosures in the offering circulars preclude a claim of fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter, namely that the CDO’s collateral had been carefully selected by an independent collateral manager, in the interests of the success of the deal and for the benefit of Auriga’s long investors. Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 38 Ltd v Merrill Lynch …, 2014 NY Slip Op 03326, 1st Dept 5-8-14

Similar issues and result re: Citigroup in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick.  Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 3 Ltd v Citigroup Global Mkts Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03358, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

, ,

Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff had adequately pled a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. The plaintiff alleged that defendant subverted a bidding process for the installation of artificial turf at state and local schools. Usually competitive bidding cases are brought in an Article 78 proceeding against the relevant public entity. This case fit an exception to that rule because it was brought against a private party working with the public entities. There was also some question whether the proceeding was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or a motion for summary judgment.  Because documentary evidence was submitted, the court’s role was to determine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether plaintiff has stated one:

…[S]ince the motion (made shortly after serving the answer and before disclosure) argued an absence of any legal viability of the alleged causes of action, Supreme Court did not err in treating the motion as a narrowly framed post-answer CPLR 3211 (a) (7) ground asserted in a summary judgment motion … . When dismissal is sought for failure to state a cause of action and, as here, plaintiff submits affidavits, “a court may freely consider [those] affidavits . . . and ‘the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one'” … .

Turning to the merits of the motion, “the laws requiring competitive bidding were designed to benefit taxpayers rather than corporate bidders and, thus, should be construed and administered with sole reference to the public interest” … . Therefore, the remedy for an alleged violation of the competitive bidding statutes typically involves a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the bidding process … . However, a narrow exception to the limited remedy may exist where a plaintiff does not seek relief from the public entity, but brings an action against someone working on behalf of the public entity in the competitive bidding process who allegedly engaged in egregious conduct unknown to the public entity aimed at intentionally subverting a fair process … . Allegations of restricting competition to artificial turf manufactured by A-Turf could be part of a cognizable claim under the narrow exception … . Chenango Contr., Inc. v Hughes Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03903, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

,

“Agreement to Agree” Insufficient to Sever a Joint Tenancy

The Third Department noted that a joint tenancy with right of survivorship can be severed by written agreement, but determined the email correspondence, which evinced the parties’ intent to sever the joint tenancy, did not accomplish the severance because material terms, including price, were not addressed: “Real Property Law § 240-c (3) (a) allows for the severance of a joint tenancy “pursuant to a written agreement of all joint tenants.” However, “a contract must be definite in its material terms in order to be enforceable” … . For this reason, an agreement to agree, where such terms are left to future negotiations, is unenforceable …”. Matter of Wyman (Riddle), 2015 NY Slip Op 03908, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

,

Contract to Share Commissions with Person Not Licensed to Sell Insurance is Illegal and Unenforceable

The Second Department determined an alleged oral agreement(with Tellkamp) to share commissions for the sale of insurance with plaintiff, who initially was not licensed to sell insurance, was unenforceable.  But, for those policies sold after plaintiff was licensed, he might be entitled to commissions under a quantum meruit theory.

At the time that the plaintiff allegedly contracted with Tellkamp and began providing services, the plaintiff was not licensed by the State of New York as an insurance broker or a licensed insurance agent appointed by Phoenix Life, and he was not licensed by the State of New Jersey as an insurance producer (see Insurance Law §§ 2103, 2104, 2112; NJ Stat Ann §§ 17:22A-29, 17:22A-28). Accordingly, he was not legally permitted to receive payment of insurance commissions, either directly from the insurers or indirectly from Tellkamp (see Insurance Law § 2114[a]; NJ Stat Ann § 17:22A-41; Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 07-05-23 [May 31, 2007]). The alleged contract was therefore illegal and is unenforceable … . Ziv v Tellkamp 2014 NY Slip Op 03261, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

, , , ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Mortgage Company Did Not Negotiate a Loan Modification in Good Faith Without a Hearing, and Could Not, Pursuant to the Contract Clause, Order the Mortgage Company to Enter a Loan Modification Agreement

After defendant, Ms Hepburn, failed to answer the summons and complaint in a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff mortgage company moved for an order of reference (the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due).  Supreme Court denied the motion and, sua sponte, determined the mortgage company had not negotiated a loan modification in good faith (CPLR 3408), and directed the mortgage company to offer a loan modification within sixty days.  The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the motion for an order of reference (which was not opposed), should not have made a finding the mortgage company failed to negotiate a loan modification in good faith without conducting a hearing, and could not, pursuant to the Contract Clause, order the mortgage company to enter a loan modification agreement:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, determined that the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408, and directed it, within sixty days, to offer a loan modification to Ms. Hepburn allowing her to assume the subject mortgage. “It is well-settled that an action to foreclose a mortgage is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . A court “may impose a sanction sua sponte, but the party to be sanctioned must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … .

Here, the only matter before the Supreme Court was the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference. Without an evidentiary hearing or notice to the parties, the Supreme Court sua sponte determined that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith in its negotiations with Ms. Hepburn at settlement conferences, which were held over a 16-month period, and thereupon denied the plaintiff’s motion. Such procedure did not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the Supreme Court’s finding that it had not met it obligation to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408 or to oppose the imposition of sanctions … . Moreover, even if sanctions for failure to negotiate in good faith were appropriate in this matter, the Supreme Court erred in directing the plaintiff to, in effect, enter into a contract with Ms. Hepburn … . Such a sanction violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution … . PHH Mtge. Corp. v Hepburn, 2015 NY Slip Op 03817, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

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