You are here: / Contract Law

1961 Royalties-Agreement Between Duke Ellington and Music Publishers Was Not Ambiguous and Could Not Be Interpreted to Refer to Parties (“Affiliates” of the Music Publishers) Which Did Not Exist In 1961—Therefore the Ellington Estate Was Not Entitled to a 50% Share of the Revenues Earned by Foreign Subpublishers With Which the Original Music Publishers Have Affiliated Since 1961

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over two dissenting opinions, determined that the terms of a 1961 royalties-agreement between Duke Ellington and music publishers were not ambiguous and must be applied as intended in 1961, even though the globalization of the music publishing business had a drastic effect on the royalty-revenues which could not have been anticipated in 1961.  The defendant music publishers which were parties to the 1961 agreement, in recent years, had become affiliated with a number of foreign subpublishers which did not exist in 1961.  The Ellington estate argued that the term “any other affiliate” (of the music publishers) in the agreement should be read to include all the recent foreign subpublishers so that the revenues earned by the foreign subpublishers would be shared by the estate. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that only the “affiliates” contemplated by the agreement in 1961 were bound by the agreement:

Absent explicit language demonstrating the parties' intent to bind future affiliates of the contracting parties, the term “affiliate” includes only those affiliates in existence at the time that the contract was executed … . Furthermore, the parties did not include any forward looking language. If the parties intended to bind future affiliates they would have included language expressing that intent. Absent such language, the named entities and other affiliated companies of EMI's predecessor which existed at the time are bound by the provision, not entities that affiliated with EMI after execution of the Agreement. As it is undisputed that the affiliated foreign subpublishers at issue here were not affiliates at the time the Agreement was executed, they are not [parties to the agreement]. Ellington v EMI Music Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07197, CtApp 10-23-14

 

, ,

The Prevailing Wage Statute Applies To All Work Reasonably Interpreted to Be Covered by the Statute—The Fact that the Application of the Statute Is Unsettled At the Time the Public Works Contract Is Entered Does Not Allow the Employer to Escape Its Reach Once the Law Is Settled

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Smith, answered two certified questions posed by the Second Circuit about the application of the prevailing wage statute to workers engaged in the testing and inspection of fire protection equipment.  The statute requires employees doing construction, maintenance or repair on public works be paid not less than the prevailing rate of wages. The Second Circuit was asked to review the Labor Department Commissioner's ruling that the statute applied to the testing and inspection of fire protection equipment, but only prospectively.  The Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals whether deference to the Labor Department's prospective application should be accorded, and further asked whether an employer who agrees to be bound to pay prevailing wages pursuant to section 220 has agreed to pay such wages for all work covered by the statute as the statute is reasonably interpreted, as opposed to only the types of work about which the law is settled at the time of the agreement.  The Court of Appeals determined the law should apply as it is correctly understood, not as the parties may have misunderstood it.  Ramos v SimplexGrinnell LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 07198, CtApp 10-23-14

 

Unambiguous Terms of a Release Must Be Enforced—Extrinsic Evidence of Intent Not Permitted

In affirming the dismissal of a complaint which was deemed barred by the terms of a release, the Second Department explained the criteria for the analysis of a release:

Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release … . A release is “governed by principles of contract law” …, and one “that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … .

The plain language of a release is controlling, “regardless of one party’s claim that he [or she] intended something else” … . Where the scope of the release is unambiguous, “the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent” … . “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” …. Sicuranza v Philip Howard Apts Tenants Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07143, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

, ,

Release Given By Injured Party to a Tortfeasor Relieves that Tortfeasor of Any Liability for Contribution

The Second Department noted that a release given in good faith by the injured person to a tortfeasor relieves that tortfeasor from liability for contribution:

“A release given in good faith by the injured person to one tortfeasor as provided in [General Obligations Law § 15-108(a)] relieves him [or her] from liability to any other person for contribution as provided in article fourteen of the civil practice law and rules” (General Obligations Law § 15-108[b]).  United States Fire Ins Co v Raia, 2014 NY Slip Op 07146, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

, ,

Landlord May Not Withhold Consent for Continued Operation of a Sidewalk Cafe Where the Lease Contemplated the Operation of the Cafe (Which Had Been in Operation for 50 Years) and Where the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Restricted the Landlord’s Ability to Withhold Consent/Erroneous Stipulated Fact Does Not Bind the Appellate Court

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that a landlord could not terminate the tenant’s operation of a sidewalk cafe because the lease contemplated that use and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing restricted the landlord’s ability to deny consent to the continued operation of the cafe.  [The underlying ruling was made on stipulated facts which included the erroneous “fact” that the lease did not include the cafe as part of the leased premises.  The First Department noted that it is not bound on appeal by an incorrect stipulation of fact]:

The question presented on appeal is whether a landlord has an unfettered right to withhold or terminate its consent to a tenant’s operation of a sidewalk café, where the café has existed for at least 50 years and the lease contemplates the use of the sidewalk for that purpose. We hold that defendants may not withhold or terminate their consent, irrespective of whether they have a good-faith basis for doing so, because the lease expressly and unequivocally requires them to consent to plaintiff’s operation of the sidewalk café. In any event, we find that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would otherwise restrict defendants’ ability to deny consent, and that they have failed to make a satisfactory showing of good faith in this case. * * *

Having determined that the lease allows plaintiff to use and occupy the sidewalk for the operation of a sidewalk café, it necessarily follows that defendants cannot withhold or revoke their consent to that use absent a good-faith basis. As the Court of Appeals has explained, “In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance. This covenant embraces a pledge that neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract. While the duties of good faith and fair dealing do not imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship, they do encompass any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 153 [2002] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).

Because the stipulated facts demonstrate that the sidewalk café existed at the time of the lease’s execution, plaintiff (through its assignor) was justified in understanding that the landlord promised to refrain from unreasonably withholding its consent to operate the sidewalk café. DMF Gramercy Enters Inc v Lillian Troy 1999 Trust, 2014 NY Slip Op 07110, 1st Dept 10-21-14

 

, ,

If a Contractual Representation or Warranty is False When Made, a Claim for Breach of Contract Accrues Upon Execution

The First Department noted that if a contractual representation or warranty is false when made, a claim for breach accrues at the time of the execution of the contract, even if the contract states that the “effective date” is earlier.  US Bank NA v DLJ Mtge Capital Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07093, 1st Dept 10-21-14

 

, ,

Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted individual defendant’s (Valentino’s) motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 because the evidence did not “utterly refute” plaintiff’s claim he had no notice Valentino was acting as an agent of a disclosed corporate principal when a building contract was executed:

“It is well settled that an individual who signs a contract as an agent for an entity will be held personally liable on the contract if the agency relationship is not disclosed” … . Whether or not a principal is disclosed depends upon whether, at the time of the underlying transaction, the other party to the contract had notice that the agent was acting for a principal and knew of the principal’s identity … .

Here, the contract identified J & J Enterprises as the builder, but there is no reference in the contract or in the accompanying specifications sheet to the status of J & J Enterprises as the trade name of a corporation or to Valentino’s status as an officer or representative of any such corporation.  Winer v Valentino, 2014 NY Slip Op 07050, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Fairness of Facially Valid Prenuptial Agreement

The Second Department determined questions of fact had been raised by defendant-wife about the fairness of a facially valid prenuptial agreement, primarily because of the absence of financial disclosure by the husband and the limited communication (at the time the agreement was executed) between the wife and the wife’s attorney (who had been hired by the husband). The court further determined that Supreme Court should not have denied the branches of the wife’s motion asking for pendente lite maintenance and counsel fees, which were not mentioned in, and therefore not precluded by, the prenuptial agreement:

An agreement between spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of unconscionability, or fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct … . “An unconscionable bargain is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the agreement, which appeared fair on its face and set forth express representations stating that, among other things, it was not a product of fraud or duress, each party had made full disclosure to the other and was represented by independent counsel, and they had fully discussed and understood its terms … .

In opposition, the defendant raised triable issues of fact with regard to, inter alia, the fairness of the agreement, the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the agreement, and the absence of any meaningful financial disclosure by the plaintiff … . McKenna v McKenna, 2014 NY Slip Op 06951, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

,

Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie

Re: an elevator-maintenance contract, the Second Department explained when a fraud cause of action must be dismissed in the context of a breach of contract action:

We find unpersuasive the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the fifth cause of action, which alleged fraud. “Where a claim to recover damages for fraud is premised upon an alleged breach of contractual duties, and the allegations with respect to the purported fraud do not concern representations which are collateral or extraneous to the terms of the parties’ agreement, a cause of action sounding in fraud does not lie” … . Here, the complaint and the accompanying affidavits alleged that the individual defendants made knowingly false statements that the subject elevators would be promptly repaired and properly maintained, and that any governmental violations that were issued with regard to them would be resolved and closed. However, the parties’ agreement, as referenced by the defendants in support of their motion, “conclusively established that the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations at issue were not collateral or extraneous to the contract. Rather, the alleged misrepresentations amounted only to a misrepresentation of the intent or ability to perform under the contract” … . Renaissance Equity Holdings LLC v Al-An El Maintenance Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06570, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

, ,

Parol Collateral Agreement Can Be Alleged Where Written Contract Does Not Embody Entire Agreement/Where Existence of Contract Is Disputed, Causes of Action for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit Are Okay/Courts Can Not Excuse Failure to Strictly Comply with Lien Law Requirements

The Second Department noted:  proof of a parol collateral agreement is okay where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement; where the existence of a contract is in dispute, causes of action for unjust enrichment and quantum merit are okay; courts do not have discretion to excuse strict compliance with Lien Law 11:

…”[A] written agreement does not exclude proof of a parol collateral agreement made even between the same parties, where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement and does not on its face purport to cover completely the subject-matter of the alleged collateral agreement” … . Here, although the first cause of action was based on a written contract, the plaintiff stated a second cause of action based on the breach of an alleged oral agreement as to services not encompassed in the written agreement.

As to the third and fourth causes of action, where, as here, the existence of the contract is in dispute, the plaintiff may allege causes of action to recover for unjust enrichment and in quantum meruit as alternatives to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014…).

Lien Law § 11 provides that within 5 days before or 30 days after filing the notice of lien, a lienor “shall” serve a copy of such notice upon the owner, as relevant here, at the owner’s “last known place of residence.” However, the plaintiff’s affidavit of service of the mechanic’s lien demonstrates that the plaintiff failed to serve the notice of the mechanic’s lien in compliance with Lien Law § 11, as the notice was not sent to the defendants’ last known place of residence. As strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the courts do not have discretion to excuse noncompliance… . Thompson Bros Pile Corp v Rosenblum, 2014 NY Slip Op 06577, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

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