You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

The Kinds of Damages Recoverable in a Property-Damage Action Stemming from Allegedly Defective Doors and Windows Explained in Some Depth—Economic Loss Rule Re: Strict Products Liability and Negligence—Consequential and Special Damages Re: Contract—When an Issue Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal Explained

In an action stemming from allegedly defective windows and doors which allowed the intrusion of water, the Second Department sorted out the interplay between tort claims and contract claims and the types of damages recoverable under each legal theory.  Among the issues discussed in some depth: the economic loss rule re: strict products liability and negligence; and consequential and special damages re: contract.  The court noted that the “economic loss rule” issue was raised for the first time on appeal and then explained why it still could consider the argument:

…[W]e note that the appellant did not raise before the Supreme Court its contention that the causes of action to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability insofar as asserted against it are barred by the economic loss rule. Nevertheless, this is a purely legal argument that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had it been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Thus, the issue may be considered by this Court even though it is being raised for the first time on appeal… .

“The economic loss rule provides that tort recovery in strict products liability and negligence against a manufacturer is not available to a downstream purchaser where the claimed losses flow from damage to the property that is the subject of the contract and personal injury is not alleged or at issue” … . The rule is applicable to economic losses to the product itself as well as consequential damages resulting from the defect … . Therefore, when a plaintiff seeks to recover damages for purely economic loss related to the failure or malfunction of a product, such as the cost of replacing or retrofitting the product, or for damage to the product itself, the plaintiff may not seek recovery in tort against the manufacturer or the distributor of the product, but is limited to a recovery sounding in breach of contract or breach of warranty … .

Here, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that it sustained economic losses generated by the repair and replacement of the glass doors and windows of a building due to the failure of such doors and windows to properly prevent water intrusion. The fabrication and/or installation of those doors and windows were the subject of its agreement with the appellant. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to recover losses generated by the repair and replacement of these doors and windows pursuant to causes of action sounding in negligence or strict products liability, such causes of action are prohibited by the economic loss rule. …

However, the plaintiff also claims that the intrusion of water caused by the defective windows and doors resulted in injury to other structural elements of the building, such as flooring and walls. These losses constitute damage to “other property” that was not the subject of the parties’ agreement and, accordingly, support a valid tort cause of action … . We note that, while the other structural elements of the building may have been damaged as a consequence of the infiltration of water through allegedly defective windows and doors, such losses do not constitute “consequential damages,” also known as “special damages,” as that term is used in contract law. Consequential or special damages usually refer to loss of expected profits or economic opportunity caused by a breach of contract … . ). Although the plaintiff may not recover such traditional consequential contract damages pursuant to a tort cause of action, the complaint does state causes of action against the appellant to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability to the extent that those causes of action seek to recover damages for injury to structural elements of the building other than the allegedly defective windows and doors themselves, which were the subject of the parties’ contract… . 126 Newton St LLC v Allbrand Commercial Windows and Doors Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06563, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

, ,

Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a provision in a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree constituted an employment contract breached when the plaintiff wife opened a competing business.  The reason for the agreement was to allow plaintiff wife to be paid maintenance by defendant husband’s business during the time when the husband was obligated to pay child support.  The wife was a consultant to defendant’s business:

It is well established that a separation agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce “is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation” … , and “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . By entering into the Agreement, defendant agreed to employ plaintiff in the event his maintenance obligation terminated during the period of time in which he was still obligated to pay child support. Inasmuch as the language of the Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, “the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” … .

While we agree with plaintiff and the court that the clear and unambiguous intent of the Agreement was to provide a substitute source of monetary support for plaintiff after defendant’s maintenance obligation terminated, we conclude that the reason defendant agreed to employ plaintiff does not change the fact that the Agreement established an employment relationship with corresponding rights and obligations for both parties.

As we have previously stated, “[a]n employee may not compete with his [or her] employer’s business during the time of his [or her] employment” … . When plaintiff opened a business in direct competition with defendant’s business, plaintiff breached her duty of loyalty to her employer … , thereby permitting defendant to terminate the consultation fees and the employment relationship. Anderson v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06415, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

,

Consent to Divorce In Exchange for Payments Would Violate Public Policy

In the course of a lengthy decision dealing with several other issues, the Second Department explained why an in-court stipulation was properly vacated, noting that defendant-wife’s consent to the divorce in exchange for financial payments could not be consideration for the stipulated agreement because such an agreement would violate public policy:

To be enforceable, an open court stipulation must contain all of the material terms and evince a clear mutual accord between the parties (see CPLR 2104…). The 2011 on-the-record agreement was too incomplete and indefinite to be enforceable, and was merely a non-binding agreement to agree … . The parties disagreed whether the proposal included a waiver of maintenance and they did not finalize the details of the transfer of the 1999 Trust. Other material terms were never agreed upon, and the agreement was subject to the consummation of future conditions and additional agreements.

The agreement also lacked consideration … . Accepting defendant’s consent to the divorce in exchange for the financial payments would have been against public policy … . In any event, the parties unambiguously agreed that “whether we hammer out the agreement or not, the divorce will go forward uncontested.” There is no merit to defendant’s claim that her decision to avoid a public trial on fault grounds constituted consideration because it would have brought up embarrassing and difficult questions for plaintiff concerning his financial dealings. Cohen v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06157, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

,

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

 

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