You are here: / Contract Law

Release Applied to Claims Unknown at the Time the Release Was Signed and to Claims Among Parties on the Same Side of the Underlying Lawsuit

The First Department determined the language of the release was broad enough to include claims not known to exist at the time the release was signed and claims among parties on the same side in the suit:

According to the language of the agreement, the release broadly barred “all and/or any” claims “arising from” or “resulting from” or “in connection with” “any act [etc.] concerning [the Fund].” This Court has actually construed similar broad language to bar fraud claims relating to the subject matter where the signatories to the agreement did not specifically refer to, or even know about, those fraud claims before executing their release … . Similarly, courts have given effect to releases even when the releasors are subjectively unaware of the precise claims they are releasing … .

* * *  … [T]he language in the release simply states that “each Party . . . irrevocably and fully releases and forever discharges each other Party.” Had the parties wanted to release only specific individuals or entities, the agreement provided the language by which the parties could have done so. Thus, the release here at issue makes clear that each individual party released each other individual party regardless of the position in which those parties stood at the time they signed the release. Long v O’Neill, 2015 NY Slip Op 01733, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Could Not Show Justifiable Reliance Upon Alleged Misrepresentations in a Stipulation

The Second Department determined the plaintiff, who was seeking to vacate portions of a so-ordered stipulation in a custody matter, failed to show the stipulation was the result of fraud.  In particular, plaintiff failed to show justifiable reliance upon any alleged misrepresentation because attachments to the stipulation reflected the actual facts:

As the party seeking to set aside the stipulation, the plaintiff had the burden of showing that the stipulation was the result of fraud … . “A cause of action alleging fraud requires a plaintiff to establish a misrepresentation or omission of material fact which the defendant knew was false, that the misrepresentation was made to induce the plaintiff’s reliance, the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and a resulting injury” … .

In light of the attachments provided with the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to establish the element of justifiable reliance. Where the plaintiff ” has the means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, he must make use of those means, or he will not be heard to complain that he was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations'” … . Cervera v Bressler, 2015 NY Slip Op 02441, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, , , ,

Tortious Interference with Contract and Unfair Competition Causes of Action Proven–Elements Explained—Punitive Damages Not Warranted–Purpose Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined that the trial judge (bench trial) properly found that JC Penney (JCP) had tortiously interfered with the exclusivity provision of a contract between Macy’s and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO), but that the trial judge had improperly dismissed the cause of action alleging tortious interference with the confidentiality provision of the contract and the cause of action for unfair competition. The First Department agreed with the trial judge that punitive damages were not warranted.  Macy’s had entered a contract with MSLO which gave Macy’s the exclusive right to manufacture and sell MSLO products. JCP was found to have knowingly and forcefully engaged in negotiations with MSLO which resulted in MSLO’s breaching both the exclusivity and confidentiality provisions of the Macy’s contract:

To sustain its claim of tortious interference with contract, Macy’s must prove (1) that it had a valid contract with MSLO; (2) that JCP had knowledge of Macy’s contract with MSLO; (3) that JCP intentionally induced MSLO to breach its contract with Macy’s; (4) that MSLO breached its contract with Macy’s; (5) that MSLO would not have breached its contract with Macy’s absent JCP’s conduct; and (6) that Macy’s sustained damages … .

* * * On the record before us, the evidence establishes that JCP had, as the court found, a “certainty” or “substantial certainty” that it actions would result in a breach, particularly in light of the unambiguous language of the contract requirement that all MSLO goods in the Exclusive Product Categories, including all such goods sold in any MSLO Store, had to be manufactured by Macy’s. * * *

… Macy’s alleges that JCP induced MSLO to disclose the terms of its agreement and confidential financial information. This was a violation of the confidentiality provision of the agreement. Macy’s sufficiently demonstrated that the material disclosed does not fall under any exception to the confidentiality provisions as required by law or legal processes. Further, Macy’s demonstrated that the scope of disclosure was not properly limited with respect to the information provided and the personnel receiving it. As noted, JCP sought this information almost from the inception of its discussion with MSLO. The information was tantamount to trade secrets, as JCP’s executives acknowledged. * * *

It is well settled that “the primary concern in unfair competition is the protection of a business from another’s misappropriation of the business’ organization [or its] expenditure of labor, skill, and money'” (Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663, 671 [1981]…). Indeed, “the principle of misappropriation of another’s commercial advantage [is] a cornerstone of the tort” (52 NY2d at 671). Allegations of a “bad faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another by exploitation of proprietary information” can give rise to a cause of action for unfair competition … .

Here, the agreement between Macy’s and MSLO provided Macy’s with valuable exclusive rights to the Martha Stewart trademark and MSLO’s designs in the Exclusive Product Categories, which, as the court found, gave Macy’s a competitive advantage. It is conceded that the MSLO brand had significant value in the retail world, and the record shows JCP was fully aware of Macy’s commercial advantage as the exclusive distributor of these branded products. JCP’s actions in attempting to misappropriate this commercial advantage by inducing MSLO to breach its agreement falls squarely within Ruder and Finn’s definition of unfair competition … . * * *

…In order to be entitled to punitive damages, a private litigant “must not only demonstrate egregious tortious conduct by which he or she was aggrieved, but also that such conduct was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally … . Punitive damages are “a social exemplary remedy, not a private compensatory remedy” Macy’s Inc v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01728, 1st Dept 2-26-15

 

Damage to Building Caused by Silica Dust Excluded from Coverage Under “Pollutants” and “Faulty Workmanship” Policy Exclusions

The Third Department determined the insurer was entitled to summary judgment based upon the exclusions of coverage in the policy. The insured sought coverage of damage caused by silica dust disbursed throughout the insured’s building.  The Third Department held that the “pollutants” and “faulty workmanship” exclusions in the policy precluded coverage, and the “ensuing loss exception” did not apply:

“[A]n insurer seeking to invoke a policy exclusion ‘must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . To determine whether a policy provision is ambiguous, courts are guided by “the reasonable expectations of the average insured upon reading the policy” … . The meaning of any part of such a policy must be determined upon consideration of the policy as a whole … . In addition, “[a]n insurance contract should not be read so that some provisions are rendered meaningless” … . Upon applying these rules of construction, if “an insurance policy’s meaning is not clear or is subject to different reasonable interpretations,” such an ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured … . Because we find that both policy exclusions apply to bar coverage here, we grant defendants’ motion and dismiss the complaint.

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on the pollution exclusion clause. Pursuant to that exclusion in the policy, defendants will not cover loss resulting from the “[d]ischarge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.'” As defined in the policy, “‘[p]ollutants’ means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, waste and any unhealthy or hazardous building materials (including but not limited to asbestos and lead products or materials containing lead).” The record contains unrebutted evidence that silica dust can cause lung disease and respiratory problems, placing such dust within the policy definition of a pollutant as “unhealthy or hazardous building material[],” as well as a “solid . . . irritant or contaminant” … . Broome County v The Travelers Indem Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 01697, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

Unambiguous Release Standing Alone Warrants Summary Judgment

The Second Department explained that an unambiguous release allows a judgment as a matter of law without resort to extrinsic evidence:

“[A]bsent fraudulent inducement or concealment, misrepresentation, mutual mistake or duress, a valid release that is clear and unambiguous on its face constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim that is the subject of the release” … . “Whether the language set forth in a release unambiguously bars a particular claim is a question of law appropriately determined on a motion for summary judgment based upon the entire release and without reference to extrinsic evidence” … . Beys Specialty Inc v Euro Constr Servs Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01598, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Misrepresentation that Dwelling Was “Owner-Occupied” Justified Rescission of the Fire Insurance Policy

The Second Department determined the representation in a fire insurance policy that the dwelling was “owner-occupied” was a material misrepresentation which allowed rescission of the policy. Even if the property owner was unaware of the misrepresentation at the outset, he ratified the contract by permitting it to be renewed:

“[T]o establish its right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must demonstrate that the insured made a material misrepresentation” … . “A representation is a statement as to past or present fact, made to the insurer by, or by the authority of, the applicant for insurance or the prospective insured, at or before the making of the insurance contract as an inducement to the making thereof” (Insurance Law § 3105[a]). “A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented” (…Insurance Law § 3105[b]). “To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises would be owner-occupied and that this misrepresentation was material … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant established that the material misrepresentation is attributable to him since, even if the application for insurance had been submitted without his actual or apparent authority, he ratified the representations contained in the application by accepting the policy for owner-occupied premises and permitting it to be renewed for years thereafter on the same terms … . Morales v Castlepoint Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 01618, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

“Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage Did Not Apply to Water Damage Stemming from an “Explosion” of a Water Main Outside Plaintiffs’ Home—The “Ensuing Loss” Exception in the Policy Referred Only to Water Damage which Stemmed from a Covered Peril (Like a Fire)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with a concurring opinion, determined the water-damage exclusion in the homeowner’s policy precluded recovery for water entering plaintiffs’ basement when a water main burst outside the home.  Plaintiffs argued that an exception in the policy for water damage resulting from an “explosion” allowed recovery.  The Court of Appeals held that the “explosion” exception was part of an “ensuing loss” exception referring to water damage which necessarily followed a covered event, like an explosion or fire, and did not cover water damage stemming from an “explosion” of a water main outside the home:

First, “[i]n determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the policy” … . Concomitantly, we “construe the policy in a way that affords a fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and effect” … .

Second, although the insurer has the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusion …, it is the insured’s burden to establish the existence of coverage … . Thus, “[where] the existence of coverage depends entirely on the applicability of [an] [*5]exception to the exclusion, the insured has the duty of demonstrating that it has been satisfied” … .

And finally, “[w]here a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk” …

In this case, plaintiffs’ loss occurred when water from a burst water main flowed onto their property, flooding the basement of their home. Accordingly, their loss clearly falls within item 4 of the water loss exclusion, which bars coverage for “loss to the property . . . consisting of or caused by . . . 4. Water . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . .[, including] water . . . which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises” … .

Turning … to the sudden and accidental exception, this clause is properly characterized as an ensuing loss provision, which “provide[s] coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage” … . Platek v Town of Hamburg, 2015 NY Slip Op 01483, CtApp 2-19-15

 

, , ,

Lease Provision Allowing the Landlord to Recover Attorney’s Fees in an Action Against the Tenant Triggered the Tenant’s Reciprocal Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees Against the Landlord Pursuant to Real Property Law 234 Should Tenant Prevail in the Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera,  determined that a provision in a lease which allowed the landlord to recover attorney’s fees in a successful action against the tenant for failure to cure a default triggered the tenant’s right to attorney’s fees under Real Property Law 234 should the tenant prevail in the action:

Under Real Property Law § 234,

“Whenever a lease of residential property shall provide that in any action or summary proceeding the landlord may recover attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred as the result of the failure of the tenant to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such lease, or that amounts paid by the landlord therefor shall be paid by the tenant as additional rent, there shall be implied in such lease a covenant by the landlord to pay to the tenant the reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred by the tenant as a result of the failure of the landlord to perform any covenant or agreement on its part to be performed under the lease or in the successful defense of any action or summary proceeding commenced by the landlord against the tenant arising out of the lease.”

In order for the tenant to be eligible for attorneys’ fees under this section, the parties’ lease must permit the landlord, in any action or summary proceeding, to recover attorneys’ fees as a result of the tenant’s breach. Where a lease so provides, the court must interpret the lease to similarly permit the tenant to seek fees incurred as a result of the landlord’s breach or the tenant’s successful defense of a proceeding by the landlord. Here, we hold that paragraph 15 provides the basis for the tenant’s claim for reciprocal rights to attorneys’ fees within the meaning of Real Property Law § 234.

Paragraph 15 of the lease, titled “Tenant’s default”, sets forth the landlord’s remedies and the tenant’s liabilities upon the tenant’s failure to comply with a term or rule in the lease. According to this paragraph, where a properly notified tenant fails to cure a default the landlord may cancel the lease and retake possession of the premises, if necessary, by way of an eviction proceeding or other lawsuit. Upon cancellation of the lease and the landlord’s repossession of the premises the tenant is liable for rent for the unexpired term. The landlord’s rights to attorneys’ fees are set forth in clause D. (3) of this paragraph, which states, in part,

“D. If this Lease is cancelled, or Landlord takes back the Apartment, the following takes place:. . . .

“(3) Any rent received by Landlord for the re-renting shall be used first to pay Landlord’s expenses and second to pay any amounts Tenant owes under this Lease. Landlord’s expenses include the costs of getting possession and re-renting the Apartment, including, but not only reasonable legal fees, brokers fees, cleaning and repairing costs, decorating costs and advertising costs.”

Thus, clause D. (3) anticipates that after a tenant’s default leads to the reletting of the premises, the landlord is entitled to collect attorneys’ fees incurred in gaining possession. Under these circumstances, clause D. (3) complies with the requirements of Real Property Law § 234 that the lease provide “in any action or summary proceeding” for the landlord’s recovery of attorneys’ fees “incurred as the result of the failure of the tenant to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such lease.” Graham Ct Owner’s Corp v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 01482, CtApp 2-19-15

,

Criteria for Vacation of a Stipulation of Settlement Not Met

In finding that the motion to vacate a stipulated settlement was properly denied, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Settlements entered into in open court are binding and are not lightly cast aside” … . A stipulation is an independent contract which is subject to basic principles of contract law … . “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Mortgage Elec Registration Sys Inc v Kontarinis, 2015 NY Slip Op 01430, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Breached Contract By Not Being Ready on the Time-of-the-Essence Date and Was Therefore Not Entitled to a Return of the Downpayment/Plaintiff’s “Tortious-Interference-with-Contract” Cause of Action Against Brokers Dismissed Because Sellers Did Not Breach the Contract

In finding plaintiff was not entitled to return of her downpayment because she was not ready to close on the “time-of-the-essence” date, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria, as well as the elements of a tortious interference with contract cause of action:

The sellers established, prima facie, that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the plaintiff lacked a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, the sellers established that they did not breach the contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the return of her down payment … . …

The plaintiff alleged that the brokers tortiously interfered with the contract between the plaintiff and the sellers. The elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract are (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract; and (4) damages … . Here, the brokers established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the third-party, i.e., the sellers, did not breach the contract; rather, the plaintiff breached the contract when she did not appear on the time-of-the-essence closing date. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Iacono v Pilavas, 2015 NY Slip Op 01418, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

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