You are here: / Contract Law

Course of Conduct Revealed the Terms of an Implied Contract—Complaint Dismissed

The Third Department determined defendant had demonstrated the terms of an implied contract by course of conduct and plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact to the contrary:

…[A]n implied contract exists when the parties have not entered into an express contract, but their course of conduct indicates that they have reached a meeting of the minds that is sufficient to constitute an enforceable contract … . A contract may be implied “as an inference from the facts and circumstances of [a] case, although not formally stated in words, and is derived from the presumed intention of the parties as indicated by their conduct” … . Here, the parties agree that they had a longstanding implied contract, but disagree as to whether the terms of this agreement included the amounts that plaintiff now seeks to collect. Plaintiff asserts that these amounts represent debts resulting from systematic underpayments by defendant dating back to 2006. However, defendant contends that it was the parties’ longstanding practice to resolve payment disputes shortly after each payment came due, and that plaintiff gave defendant no reason to believe that any such disagreements were not resolved or that any charges remained outstanding. * * *

…[T]he uncontradicted evidence reveals that, throughout the relationship, both parties treated all pricing disputes as resolved after plaintiff accepted payment and removed the charges from its statements. Plaintiff put forward no admissible evidence giving rise to issues of fact as to whether defendant was on notice that plaintiff considered any charges to be outstanding after this process was complete, or that defendant agreed, explicitly or implicitly, that it was liable for them. Thus, defendant established as a matter of law that there was no breach of contract, and its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract should have been granted … . Coca-Cola Refreshments, USA, Inc. v Binghamton Giant Mkts., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02834, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Contract Action Barred by Statute of Frauds Did Not Preclude Action Based Upon Quantum Meruit

The Third Department noted that a contract cause of action which is barred by the statute of frauds (re: the conveyance of real property) did not preclude an action based upon quantum meruit:

We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, based on an alleged oral agreement to convey real property, is barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [1]…). The statute of frauds does not, however, preclude “quasi-contractual recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered” … . Accepting as true the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, they adequately set forth a cognizable claim for quantum meruit based on the alleged performance of services by plaintiff and her expectation of payment from defendant … . Inasmuch as the quantum meruit cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, however, plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that they allege the performance of services prior to April 25, 2007, which is six years from the commencement of the action … . Rauch v Ciardullo, 2015 NY Slip Op 02823, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

A Stipulation Cannot Bind an Insurer to Nonexistent Coverage

In finding that a hearing was required to determine if respondent was entitled to supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage, the Third Department noted that a stipulation, which implied the existence of such coverage, could not bind the insurer:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties’ stipulation waived the issue of respondent’s entitlement to SUM coverage. Although the stipulation stated that, “[u]pon the completion of [certain] discovery set forth [in the stipulation, petitioner] agrees to proceed to arbitration,” a stipulation cannot create coverage of an individual, nor the obligation to arbitrate the issue of coverage, where the individual does not meet the relevant contractual prerequisites for coverage … . Stated differently, the stipulation cannot independently bind petitioner to supply coverage where no such coverage exists under the policy. Matter of Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. (Fisher), 2015 NY Slip Op 02837, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

, ,

No Liability to Third Party Stemming from Contract to Install a Sign

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s verdict in a slip and fall case was properly set aside.  Plaintiff tripped on a sign that had fallen and was covered by snow.  The evidence did not demonstrate the sign company (Everlast) “launched an instrument of harm” so as to trigger tort liability in favor of a third party arising from a contract.  The analytical criteria were explained:

” [A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party'” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this rule …, only one of which is pertinent to this case. Under that exception, a party who enters into a contract to render services may be liable in tort to a third party “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm'” … .

Here, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found that Everlast launched a force or instrument of harm … . In that respect, there was no direct evidence that Everlast was negligent in installing the sign seven months before the accident. Further, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff based upon circumstantial evidence, since the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to demonstrate that it was “more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … . Robinson v Limoncelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 02745, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Moratorium on Fracking Did Not Extend Oil and Gas Leases Beyond the Primary Five-Year Term

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a “force majeur” clause in oil and gas leases was not triggered by the moratorium on fracking in New York and, therefore, the five-year primary term of the leases was not extended by the moratorium:

Each of the leases contains an identical term clause, also known as a habendum clause, which establishes the primary and definite period during which the energy companies may exercise the drilling rights granted by the leases. Specifically, the leases’ habendum clause provides:

“It is agreed that this lease shall remain in force for a primary term of FIVE (5) years from the date hereof and as long thereafter as the said land is operated by Lessee in the production of oil or gas.”

Under this provision, the interests conveyed by the leases exist for a five-year “primary term,” followed by an open secondary term so long as the land is operated by the lessee in the production of oil or gas.

Each lease also contains what the parties refer to as a “force majeure clause.” Generally, a force majeure event is an event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance under a contract and may excuse nonperformance … . The force majeure clause here provides:

“If and when drilling or other operations hereunder are delayed or interrupted by lack of water, labor or material, or by fire, storm, flood, war, rebellion, riot, strike, differences with workmen, or failure of carriers to transport or furnish facilities for transportation, or as a result of some order, rule, regulation, requisition or necessity of the government, or as a result of any other cause whatsoever beyond the control of Lessee, the time of such delay or interruption shall not be counted against Lessee, anything in this lease to the contrary notwithstanding. All express or implied covenants of this lease shall be subject to all Federal and State laws, Executive Orders, Rules or Regulations, and this lease shall not be terminated, in whole or in part, nor Lessee held liable in damages for failure to comply therewith, if compliance is prevented by, or if such failure is the result of any such Law, Order, Rule or Regulation.” * * *

…[W]e hold that the force majeure clause does not modify the primary term of the habendum clause and, therefore, does not extend the leases. The habendum clause in the leases does not incorporate the force majeure clause by reference or contain any language expressly subjecting it to other lease terms … . Moreover, the language in the force majeure clause stating that “the time of such delay or interruption shall not be counted against Lessee” does not refer to the habendum clause with specificity. Thus, the habendum clause is not expressly modified or enlarged by the force majeure clause. Beardslee v Inflection Energy, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02677, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed a complaint based upon a release signed by the plaintiff. The release related only to the particular property damage claims referenced in the document—despite broad prefatory language:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. She had previously commenced an action in Rochester City Court seeking $4,741.04 for property damage to her vehicle. In consideration of that sum, plaintiff signed a release in favor of, inter alia, defendant Zacharey A. Taylor (defendant), releasing him from “all actions, causes of action . . . claims and demands whatsoever” that plaintiff “ever had” against defendant “from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE. And more particularly for any and all property damage claims as a result of [the subject] motor vehicle accident.”

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him in the instant action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based upon the release. “The meaning and scope of a release must be determined within the context of the controversy being settled” … , and “a release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of” … . “Moreover, it has long been the law that where a release contains a recital of a particular claim, obligation or controversy and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . Here, viewing the release in the context of the controversy being settled and in light of the specific reference to plaintiff’s property damage claims, we conclude that the parties intended that plaintiff release only such property damage claims … . Corzatt v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 02621, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

, ,

Town, Not the Town Board, Was the Proper Party/Town Could Not Use Article 78/Declaratory Judgment to Enforce a Contract/Town Entitled to Specific Performance of Contract

The Fourth Department, in the context of an action by the town for specific performance of a contract with a volunteer fire department, determined: (1) the town, not the town board, was the proper party to bring the action; (2) the hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action could not be brought by the town to enforce a contract; (3) the action should have been brought as one seeking specific performance; (4) the town was entitled to specific performance of the contract:

…[T]he Town Board lacks capacity to bring this proceeding/action.  As “artificial creatures of statute,” governmental entities such as the Town Board “have neither an inherent nor a common-law right to sue. Rather, their right to sue, if it exists at all, must be derived from the relevant enabling legislation or some other concrete statutory predicate” … . Here, Town Law § 65 (1) provides in relevant part that “[a]ny action or special proceeding for or against a town, or for its benefit, . . . shall be in the name of the town,” and that “[t]he town board of any town may authorize and direct any town officer or officers to institute, defend or appear, in any action or legal proceeding, in the name of the town, as in its judgment may be necessary, for the benefit or protection of the town” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our power pursuant to CPLR 2001 to correct that irregularity and to amend the caption by substituting the Town for the Town Board, “on behalf of” the Town … . …

… [A]lthough a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be brought against public or private corporations that “take on a quasi-governmental status” …, such “a . . . proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights’ ” … . Moreover, a declaratory judgment action is also not a proper vehicle to resolve the contractual rights herein because ” a full and adequate remedy is already provided by another well-known form of action’ ” … . Pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), however, “[i]f a court has obtained jurisdiction over the parties, a civil judicial proceeding shall not be dismissed solely because it is not brought in the proper form, but the court shall make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution.” We thus exercise our discretion under CPLR 103 (c) and convert this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action to an action for specific performance … .

“Specific performance is a discretionary remedy which is an alternative to the award of damages as a means of enforcing the contract’ . . . The right to specific performance is not automatic . . . The equitable remedy of specific performance is available in the court’s discretion when the remedy at law is inadequate . . . Finally, . . . the party seeking equity must do equity, i.e., he must come into court with clean hands” … . Here, the Town met its burden of proving that it “substantially performed [its] contractual obligations . . . within the time specified in the [2011 Contract, and] that [it] is ready, willing and able to perform those contractual obligations not yet performed and not waived by the [West Brighton Fire Department (WBFD)]” …, and the WBFD failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto … . Matter of Town Bd. of Town of Brighton v West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02581, Fourth Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Felony Convictions in Other Jurisdictions Need Not Have a New-York-Felony Counterpart to Be Considered Under the Persistent Felony Offender Statute

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined the persistent-felony-offender statute does not require that felonies committed in other jurisdictions have a felony-counterpart in New York in order to be considered re:  persistent-felony-offender status:

New York’s persistent felony offender statute, by its plain terms, does not require that, in order to classify someone as a persistent felony offender, an out-of-state predicate felony must have a New York counterpart. Section 70.10’s silence with regard to New York equivalency is dispositive. As the Second Circuit explained in Griffin, when holding that section 70.10 was rational as applied to the defendant in that case, “[s]ection 70.10 (1) (b) does not distinguish among felony convictions that arise under federal, New York State, or out-of-state law. Thus, if the acts constitute a felony under federal or another state’s law, they will be deemed a felony for purposes of persistent offender status under [s]ection 70.10 even if there is no counterpart felony in New York law” (Griffin, 156 F3d at 290 [emphasis added]…). People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 02553, CtApp 3-26-15

 

, ,

The “Strict Compliance” Rule Re: Documents Required for a Drawdown from a Letter of Credit Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that minor discrepancies in the documents required by a letter of credit as a prerequisite for a drawdown did not violate the “strict compliance” rule.  Here a true copy of a document, rather than the original, was submitted.  The true copy was deemed to satisfy the “strict compliance” rule:

…[A]pplying the standard of strict compliance, plaintiff’s drawdown request should have been honored because, under these circumstances, the production of a true copy of amendment 2, instead of an original, was sufficient even to satisfy the strict compliance standard.

Strict compliance has been said to require that “the papers, documents and shipping directions . . . be followed as stated in the letter [of credit],” that “[n]o substitution and no equivalent, through interpretation or logic, will serve,” and that “[t]here is no room for documents which are almost the same, or which will do just as well” … . Even slight discrepancies in compliance with the terms of a letter of credit have been held to justify refusal to pay … .

“The [strict compliance] rule finds justification in the bank’s role in the transaction being ministerial . . . and to require it to determine the substantiality of discrepancies would be inconsistent with its function” … . The “reason for the strict [compliance] rule is to protect the issuer from having to know the commercial impact of a discrepancy in the documents” … .

However, as this Court has recently observed, “According to the official UCC commentary, the strict compliance standard does not require that the documents presented by the beneficiary be exact in every detail” (BasicNet S.P.A v CFP Servs., Ltd., __ AD3d __, __, 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, [1st Dept 2015]) [summarized directly below]. The doctrine of strict compliance “does not mean slavish conformity to the terms of the letter of credit . . . [and] does not demand oppressive perfectionism” (id., quoting Official Comment 1, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62½, UCC 5-108 at 367). Ladenburg Thalmann & Co, Inc. v Signature Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 02224, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

, ,

Invoices Together with Purchase Orders Created an Agreement to a Reduced Sales-Contract Statute of Limitations

The Second Department determined the sales-contract statute of limitations was validly reduced from four years to one year by the terms of invoices:

While UCC 2-725(1) generally provides that a cause of action alleging breach of a sales contract must be commenced within four years after it has accrued, that provision also allows the parties to a sales contract to “reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year” (UCC 2-725[1]…). Here, the defendants met their initial burden by demonstrating that their invoices containing the one-year limitation period constituted an acceptance that, together with the plaintiff’s purchase order, was effective in forming a contract, and that the one-year limitation period, an additional term set forth in the invoices, was presumed to have become part of this contract between the parties unless one of the three exceptions in UCC 2-207(2) applied (see UCC 2-207[1], [2]…). It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s action was not commenced within one year from the alleged breach, as required by the additional term. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff, as the party opposing the inclusion of the additional term, to raise a question of fact as to whether one of the three exceptions under UCC 2-207(2) was applicable … . The plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the abbreviated period of limitation was not against public policy (see CPLR 201; UCC 2-725[1]…). ” Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … . ” Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentations in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to'” … . State of Narrow Fabric, Inc. v UNIFI, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02110, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

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