You are here: / Contract Law
,

Complaint Against Highest Bidder on Real Property Which Subsequently Refused to Execute the Contract of Sale Properly Dismissed—No Agreement Which Satisfied the Statute of Frauds and No Part Performance

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate contract or damages for breach of contract.  Defendant executed and delivered the bidding package and the required down payment, bid on the property on line and was the highest bidder.  When the contract of sale was delivered to the defendant, the defendant refused to execute it.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because there was no agreement which satisfied the statute of frauds and there was no part performance.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

​

The statute of frauds provides, as relevant here, that a contract for the sale of real property “is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged” (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). To satisfy that statute, the memorandum “must designate all parties, identify and describe the subject matter and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement” … . The memorandum is not required to be contained in one document; separate “signed and unsigned writings [can] be read together, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction,” contain all of the essential terms of a binding contract …, and the “unsigned writing [was] prepared by the party to be charged” .. . At least one document signed by the party to be charged must “establish[] a contractual relationship between the parties,” with the unsigned documents referring on their face to the same transaction … . * * *

A contract may be enforced, despite failing to comply with the statute of frauds, “in cases of part performance” (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]). When analyzing part performance for potential invocation of equitable principles, courts should only consider the actions and detrimental reliance of the party seeking enforcement of the contract … . Additionally, the conduct must be “unequivocally referable” to the alleged agreement … . Post Hill LLC v E Tetz & Sons Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08089, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, ,

Heightened Pleading Requirements for Fraud Not Met

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements:

Plaintiff has not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CPLR § 3016(b) because it failed to identify any of the allegedly, false representations that [defendant] made with the then present intent to induce plaintiff’s investment in the project. Moreover, the fraudulent inducement claim duplicates the breach of contract claim because plaintiff has not alleged any representation that is collateral to the contract … . “A fraud-based claim is duplicative of breach of a contract claim when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” MMCT LLC v JTR Coll Point LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08103, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Defendants Unable to Demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Alleged Breach of a Related Contract Relieved Defendants of the Obligation to Pay a Promissory Note—No Showing the Promissory Note and Oral Agreement Were “Intertwined”

The First Department determined the allegations that plaintiff’s breach of a related oral agreement relieved defendants of the obligation to pay a promissory note were insufficient to defeat summary judgment on the note:

” [T]he general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are “intertwined” and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact'” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the alleged oral construction management agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with the promissory note … . Castle Restoration & Constr Inc v Castle Restoration LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07972, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, , ,

Agreement to Pay over $500,000 (Re: Prior Loans Allegedly Made Over a Period Time) Not Enforceable Because the Agreement Did Not Express Any Consideration—Past Consideration Is No Consideration Because the Detriment Did Not Induce the Promise

The Second Department determined that an agreement to pay over $500,000, allegedly constituting the amount of past loans made over a period of time, was not enforceable because the agreement did not express any consideration.  However, the cause of action for monies had and received properly survived summary judgment:

The lack of consideration for a note is a bona fide defense to payment thereof … . Generally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because “the detriment did not induce the promise” … . That is, “since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise” … . However, a “promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed” (General Obligations Law § 5-1105 [emphasis added]).

Here, as indicated, the agreement did not express any consideration. Thus, it is not enforceable as a promissory note or as a contract (see General Obligations Law § 5-1105; Uniform Commercial Code § 3-104[1][a]-[d]; [2][d…). Samet v Binson, 2014 NY Slip Op -7643, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the installation of motorized window shades did not constitute “home improvement” and therefore plaintiff was not required to be licensed to perform the work.  If a license had been required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York, plaintiff would not have been able to recover under contract or quantum meruit:

“Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis” … . Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades in their condominium did not constitute “home improvement” work within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386(2)…). Rather, the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades constituted decorative work, which was not “incidental or related to” the separate home improvement renovations being performed by other contractors at the defendant’s condominium (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386[2]…). Schimko v Haley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07644, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Premarital Agreement Was the Product of Overreaching

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that defendant-wife had raised a question of fact about the validity and enforceability of the premarital agreement.  The agreement purported to resolve all financial issues in the event of divorce and entitled defendant-wife only to a payment of $25,000.00 for each year of marriage.  Plaintiff-husband had assets of $10,000,000.00 and defendant-wife had assets of $170,000.00 at the time of the marriage:

An agreement between spouses or prospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse … . Such an agreement may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct … .

There is evidence that the defendant was not represented by independent counsel in connection with the preparation and execution of the allegedly “take-it-or-leave-it” premarital agreement that is the subject of this appeal. In addition, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the preprinted financial forms executed by the parties do not demonstrate that they were expecting to enter into a premarital agreement, as the forms recite that they were furnished by a commercial bank in connection with an application for a mortgage. The defendant therefore raised triable issues of fact as to whether the premarital agreement was the product of overreaching, such that it would be rendered unenforceable … . Bibeau v Sudick, 2014 NY Slip Op 07608, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly resolved conflicting contract provisions by reference to General Municipal Law 109-b (2) which governs installment contracts entered into by municipalities.  The contract concerned the operation of a waste disposal facility which closed before the bonds used to fund it were paid off.  The insurance company sought payment from the town’s sanitary district. The court held that the clauses in the contract which insulated the district from liability for the payments (if the funds were not appropriated) were enforecable:

Consistent with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 109-b(2)(f), which applies to installment contracts entered into by municipalities, section 24 of the lease between the District and NCIDA states that:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, (i) this Agreement shall be deemed executory only to the extent of the moneys budgeted and appropriated and available for the purpose of this Agreement, and no liability on account thereof shall be incurred by the District beyond the amount of such moneys, and (ii) it is understood that neither this Agreement nor any representation by any public employee or officer creates any legal or moral obligation to request, budget, appropriate or make available moneys for the purpose of this Agreement.”

Such clauses are intended to be utilized as a shield against the imprudent use of taxpayers’ dollars, and not as a sword to divorce the State, for purposes of its own convenience, from a contract fairly entered into and honestly performed … . Nevertheless, “even though a municipality may possess sufficient funds to satisfy a particular obligation, such funds cannot be deemed available’ if the expenditure thereof would be improvident” … .

Here, although in its lease with the NCIDA the District promised to seek appropriations sufficient to make the lease payments, the lease also repeatedly stated that the District’s liability for payments was conditioned upon the appropriation of funds. Indeed, the District’s promise to seek appropriations was tempered by the provision stating that it was required to do so only “subject to the provisions of Section 24 hereof.” Since “trumping language such as a notwithstanding’ provision controls over any contrary language’ in a contract,” the Supreme Court properly relied upon this section as the basis for its determination … . Frankenmuth Mut Ins v Waste Mgt of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07624, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) [Documentary Evidence] Should Not Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Rebutted the Presumption of Validity of the Forum Selection Clause of the Relevant Contract

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon the forum selection clause in the relevant contract.  Plaintiff rebutted the presumption of the validity of the clause:

A party seeking dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(1) must submit documentary evidence that ” conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law'” … . A contract provision may constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) …, and a forum selection clause contained in a contract may provide a proper basis for dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . A forum selection clause is “prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” … . Accordingly, a forum selection clause will be given effect in the absence of a ” strong showing'” that it should be set aside … .

Here, the plaintiff has made the requisite strong showing that the forum selection clause in the nondisclosure agreement was “unreasonable.” Specifically, the plaintiff has contended, without contradiction, that neither the parties nor the agreement has any connection to the State of Delaware: none of the parties is located in Delaware, the nondisclosure agreement was not executed in Delaware, and performance of the agreement was not to take place in Delaware … . Accordingly, the prima facie enforceability and validity of the forum selection clause has been rebutted and, therefore, that clause does not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law”… . US Mdse Inc v L & R Distribs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07495, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Effects of Taking Property “As Is,” the Implied Covenant of Fair Dealing, and Constructive Eviction Discussed

Plaintiff-tenant took possession of the leased premises “as is.” Subsequently plaintiff stopped paying rent claiming that the condition of the elevator prevented the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.  In denying both parties’ motions for summary judgment (because plaintiff failed to show the condition of the elevator was the reason for the denial of the certificate of occupancy; and because the defendants failed to show it properly maintained the elevator), the Second Department explained the relevant contract principles:

A court’s fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties’ intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations … . “[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . Thus, “[i]t is the role of the courts to enforce the agreement made by the parties—not to add, excise or distort the meaning of the terms they chose to include, thereby creating a new contract under the guise of construction” … .

Moreover, “[i]mplicit in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which encompasses any promise that a reasonable promisee would understand to be included” … . “The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached when a party to a contract acts in a manner that, although not expressly forbidden by any contractual provision, would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits under their agreement” … . * * *

…[T]he fact that the plaintiff agreed to take possession of the leased premises in “as-is” condition does not necessarily warrant the conclusion that the plaintiff intended to waive any claims with respect to the portions of the building that were not leased to him, or to waive the landlord’s obligation to maintain the elevator. The defendants … argued that the provision of the lease which required them to “maintain the current elevator services and maintain and repair the elevator in reasonable condition” only obligated them to prevent any deterioration in the elevator service existing on the date that the parties entered into the lease. However, in light of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a reasonable tenant could interpret that provision as obligating the landlord to maintain the elevator free from violations and to promptly perform repairs, particularly if failing to do so could prevent the tenant from obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the leased premises. …

[Re: the defendants-landlords’ motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid rent:] “The obligation of a commercial tenant to pay rent is not suspended if the tenant remains in possession of the leased premises, even if the landlord fails to provide essential services” … . Before a tenant may withhold rent, the tenant must prove actual or constructive eviction … . To demonstrate constructive eviction, then, a tenant must vacate the premises … . Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff remained in possession of the leased premises and thus, was not constructively evicted. Prakhin v Fulton Towers Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07487, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

, , ,

City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract

The First Department determined that the Conservancy, a non-profit corporation which maintains Central Park under a contract with the City of New York, was “united in interest” with the City.  Therefore, plaintiff, who allegedly had been injured by a maintenance truck owned by the Conservancy, could amend his complaint to include the Conservancy, even though the statute of limitations had run.  The ‘unity of interest” was defined by the terms of the contract.  Because the contract did not call for the City to indemnify the Conservancy for gross negligence, the complaint against the Conservancy could not include the gross negligence claim:

… [P]laintiff relied on the 2006 Central Park Agreement, a contract between the City and the Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, in which they acknowledged that they had formed an effective “public/private partnership.” Under the Agreement, the Conservancy is required to provide specified maintenance services in Central Park to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the City, and the City is broadly required to indemnify the Conservancy “from and against any and all liabilities . . . arising from all services performed and activities conducted by [the Conservancy] pursuant to this agreement in Central Park.” The City’s indemnification obligation, among other things, expressly excludes claims arising from gross negligence or intentional acts of the Conservancy or its agents or volunteers. As a result of the Agreement, the Conservancy acts, in effect, as an independent contractor fulfilling the City’s nondelegable obligation to maintain the City parks in reasonably safe condition … .

The City is vicariously liable for the Conservancy’s negligence in the course of providing maintenance in Central Park by virtue of the contractual indemnification provision, and the parties are thus united in interest … . Further, since the City has a nondelegable duty to maintain Central Park, it is vicariously liable for negligence committed by the contractor in the course of fulfilling that duty … . However, the City is correct that its interests are not united with those of the Conservancy with respect to the proposed gross negligence claim, and leave to assert that claim against the Conservancy is therefore denied. Brunero v City of New York Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07444, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

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