You are here: / Contract Law
,

Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity

The Second Department determined the allegations of mutual mistake were not made with the requisite particularity and the related counter claim and affirmative defense were properly granted:

“A claim of mutual mistake is stated where the allegations indicate that the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Absent fraud, “the mistake shown must be one made by both parties to the agreement, so that the intentions of neither are expressed in it” … . “A claim predicated on mutual mistake must be pleaded with the requisite particularity necessitated under CPLR 3016(b)” …, which provides that “where a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, wilful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” Ultimately, the proponent of reformation based on mutual mistake must demonstrate the particulars of the actual agreement intended by the parties, based on the particularized allegations in the complaint… . Friedland Realty Inc v 416 W LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06052, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , ,

Elements of Fraud, Money Had and Received, and Unjust Enrichment Explained

In finding the allegations in the complaint insufficient, the Second Department explained the elements of causes of action for fraud, money had and received, and unjust enrichment:

The elements of a cause of action based on fraud are “a representation of material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation that it was false when made, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury” … . The misrepresentation may be in the form of an omission of a material fact … . Although the question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is usually fact-intensive …, where the plaintiff alleges only that the defendant omitted a material fact when making a representation to another party, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against either the representor or the representee … . * * *

“The essential elements of a cause of action for money had and received are (1) the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant benefitted from receipt of the money, and (3) under principles of equity and good conscience, the defendant should not be permitted to keep the money”… . * * *

In a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, “[a] plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . The plaintiff, in his complaint, did not identify any money that was retained … at his expense and, in any event, “[a]lthough privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated” … . Lebovits v Bassman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06061, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should Be Dismissed When It Is the Same as the Breach of Contract Claim

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, upheld most of the motion court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract action, but agreed with the defendant that the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing should have been dismissed because it was the same as the breach of contract claim.  (The opinion is detailed and fact-specific with little discussion of general legal principles and therefore is not summarized here):

Where a good faith claim arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages as a breach of contract claim, it should be dismissed … . Mill Fin LLC v Gillett, 2014 NY Slip Op 06039, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

, ,

Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment of Property to Another) Interpreted to Encompass Entire Leased Premises

The First Department determined that preclusion of coverage for “dishonest or criminal acts” committed by persons to whom the subject property was “entrusted” encompassed the removal of fixtures from premises leased by the insured:

Plaintiffs leased the insured premises to a tenant, which converted the premises into a youth hostel, removed the kitchen cabinets and appliances to turn the kitchens into additional dormitory areas, and, when the hostel closed, did not return the cabinets or appliances … . Plaintiffs argue that the term “entrustment” in the policy pertains solely to chattels and not to fixtures … . However, in Abrams v Great Am. Ins. Co. (269 NY 90, 92 [1935]), the Court of Appeals explained that an insurance contract’s language “must be given its ordinary meaning,” and “common words” in a policy such as entrusted are not “used as words of art with legalistic implications” (id.). Accordingly, Abrams taught, when a contract indicates that the property is entrusted, it can be understood that the parties mean that possession of property is willingly “surrender[ed] or deliver[ed] or transfer[red],” to be “used for the purpose intended by the owner . . . . The controlling element is the design of the owner rather than the motive of the one who obtained possession” (id.). Here, we find that the terms of the policy at issue do not limit what can be entrusted, that property may be entrusted to another under a triple net lease agreement, and that the entrustment refers to the entirety of the premises unless otherwise specified.  Lexington Park Realty LLC v National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburgh PA, 2014 NY Slip Op 05817, 8-14-14

 

, ,

Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Transferred

The Second Department determined that the writings were insufficient to demonstrate the grantee agreed to assume a mortgage at the time the deed was transferred:

General Obligations Law § 5-705 provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o grantee of real property shall be liable upon any indebtedness secured by a mortgage” unless, “simultaneously with the conveyance,” the grantee executes a writing before a notary agreeing to assume and pay the mortgage debt. Here, it is clear from the allegations in the complaint and attached exhibits that the defendants did not execute a notarized written agreement to assume the mortgage allegedly held by the plaintiff at the time the properties were conveyed … . Thus, General Obligations Law § 5-705 bars the plaintiff from recovering on the theory that the defendants agreed to assume his existing mortgage on the properties as alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, [recovery] is also barred by the statute of frauds because an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][2]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the various writings attached to the complaint, taken together, were insufficient to memorialize the existence of an agreement … . Dahan v Weiss, 2014 NY Slip Op 05767, 2nd Dept 8-13-14

 

, ,

Criteria for “Apparent Authority” to Enter a Binding Contract, Including the “Apparent Authority” of a Member of a Limited Liability Corporation, Explained

In determining the criteria for apparent authority, including apparent authority under the Limited Liability Corporation Law, had been met, the Fourth Department held that member of the defendant limited liability corporation (Sultan) entered into a binding contract on behalf of the defendant corporation:

“Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his own acts imbue himself with apparent authority. Rather, the existence of apparent authority depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentation of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal — not the agent” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiffs reasonably relied on, inter alia, their prior course of dealing with Sultan in his capacity as president, principal and manager of defendant … . * * *

…[W]e note that Limited Liability Company Law § 412 (a) provides that, “[u]nless the articles of organization of a limited liability company provide that management shall be vested in a manager or managers, every member is an agent of the limited liability company for the purpose of its business, and the act of every member, including the execution in the name of the limited liability company of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the limited liability company, binds the limited liability company, unless (i) the member so acting has in fact no authority to act for the limited liability company in the particular matter and (ii) the person with whom he or she is dealing has knowledge of the fact that the member has no such authority.” A nearly identical subsection provides that, where management of an LLC is vested in a manager, the acts of the manager are binding upon the LLC unless the manager at issue has in fact no authority to act for the LLC, and the person with whom he or she is dealing knows that the manager lacks such authority (§ 412 [b] [2] [A], [B]). Thus, regardless whether Sultan was acting as a manager of defendant, as reflected by his signature on the contract, or as a member of defendant, as he and defendant’s attorney previously had indicated to plaintiffs, he had apparent authority to act and his acts were binding upon defendant unless, inter alia, plaintiffs had “knowledge of the fact that [Sultan] ha[d] no such authority” … . Pasquarella v 1525 William St LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05745, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral Modification Even Where the Written Agreement Prohibits Oral Modification

The Second Department explained that an oral modification of a written agreement which prohibits oral modification can be enforced if there is partial performance of the oral modification:

“Generally, a written agreement which prohibits oral modification can only be changed by an executory agreement . . . in writing'” (…General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). “However, an oral modification is enforceable if the party seeking enforcement can demonstrate partial performance of the oral modification, which performance must be unequivocally referable to the modification” … . Matter of Latin Events LLC v Doley, 2014 NY Slip Op 05644, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Tenants Entitled to Equitable Renewal of Lease

The Second Department determined issues of fact were raised concerning whether the tenants should be allowed to remain in the leased premises.  Although the written option to renew the lease was never executed. the tenants alleged that oral assurances the tenants could remain were made by the landlord:

Although the documentary evidence conclusively established that the [tenants] failed to exercise the option to renew in accordance with the express terms of the lease …., contrary to [the landlord’s] contention, that evidence failed to conclusively establish that the [tenants] were not entitled to equitable renewal of the lease. Equity will intervene to relieve a commercial tenant’s failure to timely exercise an option to renew in accordance with the terms of the lease where “(1) the tenant’s failure to exercise the option in a timely fashion resulted from an honest mistake or inadvertence, (2) the nonrenewal of the lease would result in a substantial forfeiture by the tenant, and (3) the landlord would not be prejudiced by the renewal” … .

Here, the record reveals the existence of issues of fact as to whether the [tenants’] failure to exercise the option in accordance with the terms of the lease resulted from their mistaken belief that alleged discussions with [tenant’s agent] were sufficient to exercise the option, whether nonrenewal of the lease would result in the [tenants’] substantial forfeiture of a benefit as a result of the loss of valuable goodwill that they established at the present location, and whether [the landlord]  would suffer prejudice if the lease were renewed… . Waterfalls Italian Cuisine Inc v Tamarin, 2014 NY Slip Op 05323, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

,

Sellers Entitled to Keep Downpayment Based Upon Purchaser’s Failure to Close on Law Day

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the sellers’ motion for summary judgment and allowed the sellers to keep the purchaser’s downpayment based upon the purchaser’s failure to close on the date set by a “time-of-the-essence” demand.  The court explained the applicable law as follows:

“To prevail on a cause of action for the return of a down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant breached or repudiated the contract and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform on the closing date” … . “While a vendee can recover his [or her] money paid on the contract from a vendor who defaults on law day without a showing of tender or even of willingness and ability to perform where the vendor’s title is incurably defective, a tender and demand are required to put the vendor in default where his [or her] title could be cleared without difficulty in a reasonable time” … . The seller in such a case is entitled to “a reasonable time beyond law day to make his [or her] title good” … . “[W]hile a purchaser must normally first tender performance and demand good title to place a seller in default, when the vendor is given notice of the defect prior to the scheduled closing date and does nothing to correct it until after the closing date, the purchaser need not tender performance as such tender would be meaningless'” … . “[W]here a seller seeks to hold a purchaser in breach of contract, the seller must establish that [he or she] was ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for its failure to close” … . *  *  *

…[T]he sellers demonstrated, prima facie, that they were given no notice of the alleged defect, and that the purchaser was therefore required to appear at closing and tender her performance … . Furthermore, under these circumstances, the sellers were entitled to a reasonable adjournment to allow them to address the purchaser’s objections, notwithstanding the fact that they had declared that time was of the essence … . Moreover, the sellers satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . Martocci v Schneider, 2014 NY Slip Op -5308, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

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