You are here: / Contract Law
,

Stipulation of Settlement Not Enforceable/All Material Terms Not Included

The Second Department determined the purported stipulation of settlement did not meet the standards set forth in CPLR 2104:

Absent the formalities required by statute, a stipulation of settlement is not enforceable (see CPLR 2104…). Pursuant to CPLR 2104, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” The stipulation must be “definite and complete” … , and all material terms must be included … .

In this case, the alleged written stipulation of settlement …, entitled “Agreement in Principle,” was not signed by all the parties to the litigation, and the agreement did not state that the two signatories to the agreement intended to bind all the parties to the agreement’s terms. Further, as a material term of the agreement at issue was contingent upon the parties’ executing a formal agreement, the agreement constituted a mere agreement to agree, which is unenforceable … . De Well Container Shipping Corp. v Mingwei Guo, 2015 NY Slip Op 02090, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

, ,

(1) The Effect of Minor Discrepancies Re: the Submissions Required by a Standby Letter of Credit (SLC) (2) The Criteria for Interpreting an SLC (3) the Nature of an SLC and (4) the “Independence Principle” as Applied to an SLC Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, reversed Supreme Court and determined the issuer of standby letters of credit (SLC) was required to honor them.  The opinion is detailed and fact-based.  Among the legal issues discussed are: (1) minor discrepancies re: the documents required to be submitted (for a drawdown) by the terms of an SLC do not violate the “strict compliance” rule; (2) how to interpret an SLC; (3) the nature of an SLC  (versus a guaranty); and (4) the “Independence Principle” which requires that an SLC be deemed separate and distinct from the other contractual agreements underlying the transaction:

Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit … . “The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” … . The reasoning is that “[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are” … . “Where a letter of credit is fairly susceptible of two constructions, one of which makes fair, customary and one which prudent men would naturally enter into, while the other makes it inequitable, the former interpretation must be preferred to the latter, and a construction rendering the contract possible of performance will be preferred to one which renders its performance impossible or meaningless” … . * * *

There are three parties to an SLC: the applicant who requests the SLC; the beneficiary to whom payment is due upon the presentation of the documents required by the SLC; and the issuer which obligates itself to honor the SLC and make payment when presented with the documents the SLC requires. In turn, there are three corresponding agreements: the agreement between the applicant and the beneficiary, which creates the basis for the SLC; the agreement between the issuer and the applicant; and the SLC itself … .

“[A] fundamental principle governing these transactions is the doctrine of independent contracts, [which] provides that the issuing bank’s obligation to honor drafts drawn on a letter of credit by the beneficiary is separate and independent from any obligation of its customer to the beneficiary under the … contract and separate as well from any obligation of the issuer to its customer under their agreement” … .

From the beneficiary’s perspective, the independence principle makes a letter of credit superior to a normal surety bond or guaranty because the issuer is primarily liable and is precluded from asserting defenses that an ordinary guarantor could assert. Indeed, “a letter of credit would lose its commercial vitality if before honoring drafts the issuer could look beyond the terms of the credit to the underlying contractual controversy or performance between its customer and the beneficiary”… . BasicNet S.P.A. v CFP Servs. Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, 1st Dept 3-17-15

 

Subcontractor’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Despite Absence of Privity

The Second Department determined the motion for dismissal (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) of a breach of contract/quantum meruit cause of action brought by a subcontractor should not have been granted. The documents submitted by the defendant did not eliminate the possibility that the defendant’s dealings with the subcontractor could have given rise to a breach of contract action in the absence of privity:

Generally, a subcontractor may not assert a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against a party with whom it is not in privity … . Nevertheless, “a subcontractor can sometimes state a cause of action [alleging] breach of contract or unjust enrichment against the owner where direct dealing between the owner and the subcontractor justify imposing an obligation upon the owner despite the initial lack of privity between them” … . Vertical Progression, Inc. v Canyon Johnson Urban Funds, 2015 NY Slip Op 01939, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement/Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the grievance (re: longevity pay) was not arbitrable.  The court outlined the analytical criteria:

“The determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to [a] two-prong test” … . “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” … . “If there is no prohibition against arbitrating, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … .

Here, the County did not contend that arbitration of the subject matter of the dispute was prohibited by law or public policy. Thus, the only issue is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute … .

“Unlike general labor disputes in the private sector involving arbitration, the intent to arbitrate of parties to a collective bargaining agreement in the field of public employment may not be presumed” … . “Indeed . . . it must be taken, in the absence of clear, unequivocal agreement to the contrary, that the [parties to a collective bargaining agreement] did not intend to refer differences which might arise to the arbitration forum” … .

Here, contrary to the Union’s contention, the CBA did not broadly provide for the arbitration of any grievance that may arise under the CBA … . Rather, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the CBA limited the availability of arbitration to specifically enumerated matters … .  Matter of County of Rockland v Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn. of Rockland County, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 01798, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

,

Merger Doctrine and “As Is” Clause Did Not Bar Suit/Fraud-Based Causes of Action Did Not Duplicate Breach of Contract Cause of Action

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a dissent, determined, in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the merger doctrine did not apply to a contract for the sale of an apartment building, the fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations causes of action were not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (which was time-barred), and sufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil had been pled.  The opinion is detailed because of the complicated facts and cannot fairly be summarized here.  With respect to the merger doctrine and the fraud-based causes of action, the court wrote:

The merger doctrine in a real estate transaction provides that once the deed is delivered, its terms are all that survive and the purchaser is barred from prosecuting any claims arising out of the contract … . The only exception to this rule is where the parties clearly intended that the particular provision of the contract supporting the claim would survive the delivery of the deed … . Further, an “as is” clause in a contract to sell real property will ordinarily bar a claim for breach of contract … . Plaintiff argues that the merger doctrine does not apply here because of the latent nature of the defects at issue. It further contends that its allegations of deceptive behavior on Seller’s part to mask the true condition of the building render the “as is” clause inoperable.

Although plaintiff cites trial court opinions identifying a latency exception to the merger doctrine, the concept has not been adopted by any of the Appellate Divisions or by the Court of Appeals … , and we are not adopting it here. Nevertheless, the merger doctrine is inapplicable in this case. Although the crux of the action is undoubtedly that plaintiff took title to a seriously defective building, the specific allegations in the complaint are that Seller breached the contract by failing to abide by those provisions designed to permit plaintiff to gain a true understanding of the condition of the property. …[E]ach of those representations was explicitly intended by the parties not to merge into the deed.

Further, since the breach of contract cause of action is addressed to these representations, and not to the condition of the building itself, the presence of the “as is” clause is no bar to the claim. Additionally, while the “as is” clause states that Seller has made no representations as to “any other matter or thing affecting or relating to the property,” it carries the caveat that this is “except as specifically set forth to the contrary in this agreement” (emphasis omitted). Thus, the three specific representations which plaintiff alleges were breached trump the “as is” clause. To the extent that plaintiff asserts fraud claims not directly related to the three surviving representations, the merger doctrine still does not apply (West 90th Owners Corp. v Schlechter, 137 AD2d 456, 459 [1st Dept 1988] [“fraud is a recognized exception to the merger doctrine”). * * *

Where “allegations of intentional fraud, though parallel in many respects to the breach of contract claim, include claims of fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendants which induced them to enter into the contract and close on the property, they are not merely redundant of the breach of contract claim . . . [and a] fraud cause of action is sustainable” … . TIAA Global Invs., LLC v One Astoria Sq. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01768, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

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

 

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