You are here: / Contract Law
,

Failure to Appear at Deposition Was a Material Breach of a Condition Precedent to the Promise to Indemnify

The Second Department determined that the assignees of no-fault insurance benefits were not entitled to a second chance to appear at a deposition called by the plaintiff. Appearance at the deposition was a condition precedent to the promise to indemnify and the failure to appear was a material breach precluding recovery:

“It is well established that the failure to comply with the standard policy provision requiring disclosure by way of submission to an examination under oath, as often as may be reasonably required, as a condition precedent to performance of the promise to indemnify, constitutes a material breach” of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds … . In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment, the plaintiff, upon renewal, submitted evidence establishing “that it twice duly demanded an examination under oath” from the assignees, that the assignees twice failed to appear, and that the plaintiff “issued a timely denial of the claims” arising from the assignees’ provision of medical services to the assignors … . Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the assignees failed to submit evidence of a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance with the demands for examinations under oath, or of partial performance on their part … . The assignees also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness or propriety of the demands for the examinations under oath … . Moreover, “the [assignees’] breach of the policy was not cured by [their] belated expression of a willingness to cooperate which was made more than two years after the loss and only in response to the insurer’s motion for summary judgment” … . “[A]n insurance company is entitled to obtain information promptly while the information is still fresh to enable it to decide upon its obligations and protect against false claims. To permit [the defendants] to give the information more than [two] years after the [loss] would have been a material dilution of the insurance company’s rights” … . IDS Prop Cas Ins Co v Stracar Med Servs PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02902, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, , ,

Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim

In a detailed opinion by Justice Moskowitz, the First Department methodically went through the issues raised in a trial stemming from the breakdown of a partnership including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. In the course of the opinion, the court noted that inclusion of a cause of action and counterclaim for rescission constituted a waiver of a jury trial:

Defendants next assert that the trial court improperly struck their jury demand in Action 1. This argument has no merit. Because defendants’ demand for the equitable remedy of rescission in Action 2 was not “incidental” to that action, and their demand for rescission was not “incidental” to their counterclaims in Action 1, defendants effectively waived their right to a jury trial by joining those demands with claims for legal relief … . In addition, defendants argued that rescission of the partnership’s license agreements … was “the core” of their claims in both actions, and defendants all asserted, as part of their Action 1 counterclaims, that they had “no adequate remedy at law.” New Media Holding Co LLC v Kagalovsky, 2014 NY Slip Op 02888, 1st Dept 4-29-14

 

, , ,

No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest

The First Department determined plaintiff had not stated causes of action against a bank based in part upon alleged violations of statements in a checking-account brochure issued by the bank.  The complaint challenged the method used by the bank to impose overdraft charges on plaintiff’s checking account, alleging breach of contract, violations of General Business Law 349 and usury.  With respect to the General Business Law and usuary causes of action, the court wrote:

To state a claim under General Business Law § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . A ” deceptive act or practice'” is defined as “a representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … * * *  Plaintiff makes no claim that the applicability of his overdraft protection was not disclosed to him. * * *

The third cause of action, alleging usury, was properly dismissed because, as found by the motion court, overdraft charges are not interest. “If an instrument provides that the creditor will receive additional payment in the event of a contingency beyond the borrower’s control, the contingent payment constitutes interest within the meaning of the usury statutes” … . Even assuming a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, the contingency of an account overdraft would have been within plaintiff’s control … . Feld v Apple Bank for Sav, 2014 NY Slip Op 02662, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for a Constructive Trust and Quantum Meruit

Plaintiff alleged the expenditure of resources for the development of a quarry on defendant’s land. Defendant had changed the locks to the property and refused plaintiff further access. In determining that plaintiff had stated causes of action for a constructive trust and quantum meruit, the Third Department explained the relevant criteria:

Supreme Court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the cause of action seeking to impose a constructive trust on the business property. This equitable remedy may be imposed “when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest” … . To prove entitlement to this relief, a plaintiff must establish “a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon and unjust enrichment” … . The element of transfer has been interpreted to include the expenditure of effort and resources in reliance upon a promise to share in a property interest … .

Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with defendant, that defendant made promises that plaintiff and defendant had a partnership and that plaintiff had vested rights and interests in the quarry business and property, that plaintiff relied on these promises and the fiduciary relationship in contributing resources to develop the business, and that defendant breached these promises and would be unjustly enriched in the absence of a constructive trust. Deeming these allegations to be true, construing them liberally, and granting plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must …, we find that the amended complaint adequately states a cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust… .

The cause of action in quantum meruit requires a showing of “a plaintiff’s performance of services in good faith, acceptance of those services by a defendant, an expectation of compensation and proof of the reasonable value of the services provided” … . The complaint alleges that plaintiff acted in good faith and in the expectation of compensation in making the previously-discussed contributions to the business, that defendant accepted its services and contributions, and that plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of the reasonable value of its contributions. Plaintiff further submitted the affidavit of its principal (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]…) , alleging that plaintiff contributed more than $200,000 toward the business as well as all of the knowledge, labor, equipment and other resources necessary for its development, that a substantial amount of processed material that it had paid to create remained on the property when plaintiff was locked out in 2011, and that defendants have continued to benefit from plaintiff’s contributions thereafter by selling materials from the business without compensating plaintiff accordingly. Thus, despite defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s services were performed primarily for its own benefit, we agree with Supreme Court that the complaint states a cause of action in quantum meruit … . Rafferty Sand & Gravel LLC v Kalvaitis, 2014 NY Slip Op 02656, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

, , ,

No Duty to Defend Where Causes of Action Are Excluded from Coverage Under the Terms of the Policy

The Third Department determined that the terms of two insurance policies prohibited plaintiff’s suit for a declaration the insurance companies had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff.  The causes of action brought against plaintiff (tortious interference with contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices and misappropriation of trade secrets) did not constitute a violation of “a person’s right to privacy” within the meaning of the policies. And the causes of action explicitly excluded from coverage, therefore the insurance companies were not obligated to provide a defense:

…[P]laintiff’s actions —–tortious interference with contract and business relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices and misappropriation of trade secrets –do not constitute a violation of “a person’s right of privacy” within the meaning of either Twin City’s or CastlePoint’s policy.

…[I]it is well settled that “[a]n insurer need not provide a defense . . . when it demonstrates that the complaint’s allegations cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and further, that . . . the allegations, in toto, are subject to no other interpretation” … . Here, Twin City relies upon three exclusions relative to the personal and advertising injury coverage otherwise afforded by its policy — the intentional conduct exclusion, the breach of contract exclusion and the trademark exclusion [FN4]. In the context of an insurance policy, “the phrase ‘arising out of’ is ordinarily understood to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with . . . [and] requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided or excluded” … . Without belaboring the point, suffice it to say that our review of the underlying complaint leads us to conclude that all of the allegations contained therein with respect to plaintiff fall within at least one of the cited exclusions. Accordingly, coverage was properly denied for this reason as well. Sportsfield Specialties Inc v Twin City Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02646, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and found plaintiff had sufficiently pled the causes of action for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff lived with and took care of an elderly woman for six years, an obligation undertaken by the defendant.  Although plaintiff was given room and board, as well as health insurance, by the defendant, she was never paid for her work.  The suit was based upon plaintiff’s allegation that defendant had promised to compensate her. The Supreme Court found the “compensation-promise” allegation incredible because plaintiff worked for six years without pay. The First Department noted that whether the “compensation-promise” allegation was credible was solely a matter for the jury.  The court explained the elements of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment:

Generally, under the doctrine of quantum meruit, “the performance and acceptance of services gives rise to the inference of an implied contract to pay for the reasonable value of such services” … . To state a cause of action for quantum meruit, plaintiff must allege “(l) the performance of the services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services” … .

Allegations that plaintiff provided personal services in good faith … on behalf of defendant … are sufficient. Similarly, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the element of acceptance via allegations that defendant, inter alia, placed her on … group insurance, filed tax returns on her behalf, and submitted visa applications in which she represented that plaintiff was an employee … . * * *

Similarly, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, at this juncture, that defendant … was unjustly enriched at her expense. To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that (1) defendant was enriched, (2) at plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [] defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . A person may be unjustly enriched not only where she receives money or property, but also where she otherwise receives a benefit … . Such a benefit may be conferred where the person’s debt is satisfied or where she is otherwise saved expense or loss … .

* * * The fact that plaintiff may have been compensated, in part, by room and board and health insurance, is not dispositive on the question of whether she received adequate compensation for her services, and does not bar the claim at the pleading stage … . Farina v Bastianich, 2014 NY Slip Op 02661, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

, , ,

No Private Right of Action for Homeowners Against Lenders Under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)—Home Affordable Modification Program Was Not Enacted Solely for the Benefit of Homeowners(?)

The Second Department, after finding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply because there was no final determination adopting the plaintiff’s contrary position in the first litigation, determined the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), enacted pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), did not create a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer.  The lender had denied plaintiff’s application for a permanent HAMP loan modification and plaintiff’s brought suit alleging breach of contract (re: a trial period plan or TPP), fraud in the inducement, promissory estoppel and a violation of General Business Law 349:

When, as here, a statute does not provide an express private right of action, the courts will imply a private right of action only upon examination of the following three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … .

As to the first factor, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 USC §§ 5201-5261; hereinafter the EESA), which authorized the United States Department of the Treasury to promulgate the HAMP, was enacted “to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States” (12 USC § 5201[1]) and “to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that (A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings; (B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth; (C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and (D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority” (12 USC § 5201[2]). Similarly, Section 201(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (111 P.L. 22, § 201[a][2][A][i], 123 Stat 1632, 1638) simply articulated a Congressional finding that, in order to reduce the number of foreclosures and stabilize real property values, mortgage lenders should be given authorization to modify mortgage loans consistent with applicable guidelines promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury pursuant to EESA. Thus, although financially struggling homeowners may derive a benefit from the HAMP, that program was not promulgated solely for their particular benefit … . As to the second factor, the underlying purpose of the HAMP is to incentivize mortgage loan servicers to reduce monthly mortgage payments and, thus, prevent avoidable home foreclosures … . Accordingly, a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer arising from an alleged breach of a TPP agreement is inconsistent with the purpose of HAMP, as judicial recognition of such a private right of action would deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP … . As to the third factor, the EESA expressly provides for civil actions by the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][1]) and for actions seeking equitable relief against the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][2], [3]), but makes no reference to private rights of action by borrowers against mortgage lenders or loan servicers. Moreover, given that, as noted above, private rights of action could conceivably deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP, which would, in turn, undermine the HAMP’s purpose, allowing for a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme of EESA. Since the plaintiffs’ claims here are intertwined with the defendants’ alleged obligations under the HAMP, and as no private right of action exists under the HAMP, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action… . [emphasis added]  Davis v Citibank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 02557, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

,

Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No Duty Independent of the Contract Itself

The First Department determined that the negligence causes of action were subsumed in the breach of contract allegations and could not be separately pled:

Breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . Allegations of negligence based on defects in construction of a condominium sound in breach of contract rather than tort … . A claim for negligent misrepresentation is not separate from a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff fails to allege a breach of any duty independent from contractual obligations … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any legal duty that would give rise to an independent tort cause of action. Neither General Business Law art 23-A nor its regulations create a special duty or support a private right of action. Thus, the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claim and did not state a cause of action. Board of Mgrs of Soho N 267 W 124th St Condominium v NW 124 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02513, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement

The First Department determined the agreement between the parties did not contemplate lost profits and, therefore, lost profits could not be awarded as damages for the breach:

Nevertheless, the court properly concluded that [plaintiff] was not entitled to recover lost profits. To the extent [plaintiff] seeks lost profits for a five-year period, such damages are speculative, as its assumption that it would have remained in contract with [defendant] for five years could not be established with reasonable certainty. To the extent it seeks lost profits in the amount of $1 million for 2010 (i.e., $500,000 for two seasons), such lost profits were not within the contemplation of the parties as a probable result of a breach at the time they entered into the agreement and could not be established with reasonable certainty … . The evidence surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract does not show that the parties expected [defendant] to bear the responsibility for any lost profits sustained by [plaintiff]. Indeed, all the witnesses acknowledged that sales revenue of $500,000 per season was mere expectation, and [defendant’s] principal testified that he would not guarantee minimum sales in his sales agreements, especially with emerging designers, as there were “too many variables involved in procuring success in sales in our very competitive and fickle industry.” Such evidence undermines the conclusion that the parties contemplated that [defendant] would assume liability for [plaintiff’s] loss of anticipated revenue … . Olsenhaus Pure Vegan LLC v Electric Wonderland Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02343, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

, , ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary

After sorting out professional malpractice claims (negligence—three-year S/L) from breach of contract claims (intentional—six year S/L), the Third Department explained the elements of a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action in the context of actuarial services (provided by SGRisk):

Actuaries are not considered professionals for the purpose of the shortened statute of limitations applicable to malpractice claims … . Despite not being deemed professionals in that context, actuaries can still develop relationships of trust and confidence sufficient to give rise to a fiduciary duty. Courts must conduct a fact specific inquiry to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists based on confidence on one side and “resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that SGRisk “held itself out as being a skilled and competent actuarial” firm that “adhered to accepted professional standards,” that it rendered services for the trusts’ benefit, provided advice and created “a relationship of trust and confidence between” itself and the trusts. Plaintiff also alleged that SGRisk agreed to exercise “good faith and undivided loyalty” when determining appropriate valuation of the trusts’ future claims liability and the trusts reasonably relied on this, placing confidence in SGRisk that it would accurately produce truthful annual actuarial reports with correct estimates of future claims reserves. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that SGRisk breached the duty by knowingly and consistently underestimating the claims liabilities and necessary reserves and failing to identify dangerous underfunding … .  New York State Workers’ Compensation Board… v SGRisk LLC, 517387, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

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