You are here: / Contract Law
,

Defendant Not Prejudiced by Disposal of Damaged Goods (Spoliation)/Lost Profits Recoverable Where Purchase Price Set at Time of Damage

The Second Department affirmed several rulings made by the trial court in the damages aspect of a trial in which plaintiff alleged defendant’s malfunctioning sprinkler system ruined over $1 million worth of clothing stored in the building. The fact that plaintiff disposed of some of the damaged clothes and sold the remainder for salvage (spoliation) did not prejudice the defendant. And, the fact that a purchase price for some of the goods had already been set at the time of the loss allowed recovery for lost profits because the loss was not speculative:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiff from offering at trial any evidence of damages based upon spoliation of evidence. The defendant failed to establish that it was severely prejudiced by the disposal and sale of the damaged goods, fatally compromising its ability to mount a defense and necessitating such relief as a matter of fundamental fairness… . * * *

“Generally, where property is damaged but not destroyed, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value before the damage and the market value afterwards” … . The market value of a merchant’s goods is the price at which they could be replaced in the market, not the retail price at which they could be sold … . This is because allowing recovery of the retail value of damaged goods “would in effect overcompensate the merchant by allowing recovery of unearned profits” (2-248 Warren’s Negligence in New York Courts § 248.01[3][b] [2013]).

Here, however, the plaintiff was not holding the goods in stock in anticipation of trying to sell them at retail for “uncertain and indefinite profits which the plaintiff might have made” from their sale … . Rather, the goods were already under contract for a specified price and awaiting delivery. “[W]here . . . a loss of profits is the natural and probable consequence of the [defendant’s negligence], and their amount is shown with reasonable or sufficient certainty, there may be a recovery” … .  Ever Win Inc v 1-10 Indus Assoc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07933, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that a cause of action based upon the theory that condominium owners were third-party beneficiaries of a contract between a village and an engineer hired to inspect the condominiums should not have been dismissed.  It was alleged that the engineer approved the buildings (leading to the issuance of certificates of occupancy by the village) despite defects, including the absence of firewalls. Because a contract-based theory had been properly alleged, the related professional malpractice cause of action, sounding in negligence, should have been dismissed:

In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement . . . Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” … . Here, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the Village Attorney attesting that the Village engaged the defendant to perform the subject inspections for the benefit of the purchasers of the subject condominiums … . Moreover, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … .

The plaintiffs asserted in the complaint that the defendant “negligently performed inspection services relative to the homes in [Encore I] and [Encore II],” in that, inter alia, the defendant “fail[ed] to detect the existence of defects in the homes and appurtenant common areas.” “[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim” … . This is because “[o]bligations that flow exclusively from a contract must be enforced as contractual duties under a theory of contract law” … . “[A] court enforcing a contractual obligation will ordinarily impose a contractual duty only on the promisor in favor of the promisee and any intended third-party beneficiaries” … . “Thus where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie'” .. . Taking into account the applicable factors, including “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” … , it is clear that the plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries, are seeking enforcement of the defendant’s promise to properly inspect the construction of the subject homes. Thus, the only claim the plaintiffs have alleged against the defendant is one sounding in contract, and they have failed to state a cause of action sounding in tort. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn Inc v Cashin Assoc PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07932, Second Dept 11-27-13

 

,

“Rent Paid In Advance” Lease Enforced/Insufficient Proof of Oral Modification

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division correctly held the tenant was obligated to pay an annual rent in advance and the proof was insufficient to demonstrate any contrary oral modification of the lease.  The Court explained the “rent paid in advance” concept and the criteria for oral modification in the face of a clause prohibiting it:

Under the common law, rent is consideration for the right of use and possession of the leased property that a landlord does not earn until the end of the rental period (…1 Friedman & Randolph, Friedman on Leases § 5:1.1 [5th ed 2013]).  This presumption may be altered, however, by the express terms of the parties’ lease such that rent is to be paid at the beginning of the rental period rather than the end (…1 Robert Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Tenant § 12:23 [4th ed 1998]; 1 Friedman & Randolph § 5:1.1). When a lease sets a due date for rent, that date is the date on which the tenant’s debt accrues (see 1 Friedman & Randolph § 5:1.1… ).  Rent paid “in advance” (i.e. at the beginning of the term) is unrecoverable if the lease is terminated before the completion of the term, unless the language of the lease directs otherwise … * * *

When the parties dispute whether an oral agreement has been formed, it is the conduct of the party advocating for the oral agreement that is “determinative,” although the conduct of both parties may be relevant … .  This is because the equity doctrine is designed to prevent a party from inducing full or partial performance from another and then claiming the sanctuary of the Statute of Frauds or section 15-301 when suit is brought … .  Eujoy Realty Corp v Van Wagner Communications LLC, 179, CtApp 11-26-13

 

,

No Legal Duty Owed Independent of Contract—Negligence Cause of Action Dismissed

In the context of the dismissal of a tort action against Ferguson Electric Service Company after a building fire, the Fourth Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to an action in tort:

“It is a well-established principle that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated . . . This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … .  Plaintiffs cannot maintain their tort cause of action because Ferguson … owed no legal duty that is independent of the contract … .  Moreover, “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party…”… . Niagara Foods, Inc…v Ferguson Electric Service Company, Inc…, 1044, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Contractor May Be Liable to Noncontracting Third Party If Area Made Less Safe by Contractor’s Work

The Fourth Department reinstated a claim for contribution by the owner of a parking lot (Piedmont) against the contractor (Bach) hired to raze structures and fill in all holes.  Plaintiff was injured when his foot fell through a hole into a hidden vault below:

We conclude that Bach met its initial burden on its motion with respect to the claim for contribution by establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that claim … .  Specifically, Bach established as a matter of law “that the injured plaintiff was not a party to [the] contract . . . and that it thus owed no duty of care to the injured plaintiff” … .  In opposition, however, Piedmont raised triable issues of fact to defeat that part of the motion.  Although plaintiff was a noncontracting third party with respect to the construction contract between Bach and Piedmont, Bach may still be liable if, “in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, [it] ‘launche[d] a force or instrument of harm’ ” … , or otherwise made the area “less safe than before the construction project began” … .  Here, there are issues of fact whether Bach negligently filled in the vault only partially, and concealed its existence, thereby creating a force or instrument of harm or otherwise making the area less safe than before the demolition project began … . Paro v Piedmont Land and Cattle, LLC…, 1189, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

, ,

Lease; Services Agreement Did Not Allow Building Owner to Recover for Condition of Property

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiffs, the building owners, could not recover damages related to the condition of the property upon the termination of the lease.  The property was used as a homeless shelter.  The City of New York entered into a Services Agreement with The Salvation Army to run the shelter.  The Salvation Army leased the property from the property owners. The City, in the Services Agreement, was required to pay The Salvation Army’s obligations to the property owners under the lease. The Court wrote:

The Lease is clear that, as a general proposition, The Salvation Army is not obliged to pay more to plaintiffs than it can recover from the City, and it is equally clear that The Salvation Army must do what it reasonably can to recover what the City owes it.  If The Salvation Army breached its duty to use commercially reasonable efforts to enforce a City obligation, it could not rely on the City’s non-payment of that obligation to defeat plaintiffs’ claim.  …[H]owever, … the complaint fails to allege any commercially reasonable step that The Salvation Army should have taken to recover money from the City. Plaintiffs do not identify any provision of the Services Agreement under which the City owes money to The Salvation Army that The Salvation Army failed to collect.  JFK Holding Company LLC v City of New York…, 196, CtApp 11-14-13

 

, ,

Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work

The Second Department determined that the contractor, Matell, who was hired by the tenant to construct a supermarket, could not impose a mechanic’s lien upon the property owner (Fleetwood Park) based on the tenant’s failure to pay.  In affirming the dismissal of two affirmative defenses, the court explained that the lien was timely filed and privity was not required for a valid mechanic’s lien. On the “affirmative consent of the property owner requirement,” the court wrote:

“A contractor who performs work for, or provides equipment to, a tenant may nonetheless impose a mechanic’s lien against the premises where the owner of the premises affirmatively gave consent for the work or equipment directly to the contractor, but not where the owner has merely approved or acquiesced in the undertaking of such work or the provision of such equipment” … . “To sustain the lien, the owner must either be an affirmative factor in procuring the improvement to be made, or having possession and control of the premises assent to the improvement in the expectation that he [or she] will reap the benefit of it'” … .

Here, while Matell presented evidence showing that Fleetwood Park had knowledge of, and acquiesced in, the work performed to convert the leased property into a supermarket for the tenant’s use, Matell failed to present any evidence showing that Fleetwood Park conveyed any affirmative consent directly to Matell for the work … . Therefore, Matell failed to make a prima facie showing that Fleetwood Park affirmatively consented to the subject work.  Matell Contr Co v Fleetwood Park Dev LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07456, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Cause of Action for Breach of “Sharing Assets” Agreement Entered Into During an 18-Year “Committed Same-Sex Relationship” Reinstated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, over a dissent, the Second Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for breach of contract based upon an agreement made during an 18-year “committed, same-sex relationship.” The complaint alleged that the partners had entered an oral “joint venture/partnership” agreement involving sharing assets, including retirement contributions and earnings, in exchange for plaintiff’s leaving her full-time job to care for the partners’ children. Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint. The Second Department reinstated the breach of contract cause of action but affirmed the dismissal of the constructive trust, unjust enrichment and accounting causes of action.  With respect to breach of contract, the court wrote:

[The] factual allegations adequately set forth the existence of a contract pursuant to which the plaintiff would quit working full-time, thereby ceasing to earn money toward her own retirement plan, and pursue part-time work enabling her to stay home to care for the parties’ children, in exchange for a one-half share in the defendant’s retirement accounts accrued during those years that the plaintiff refrained from working at a job which provided retirement benefits.

The alleged contractual agreement between the parties was supported by consideration. “Consideration consists of either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him [or her]” … . The consideration here for the alleged contract is the forbearance of the plaintiff’s  career, the inability to continue to save toward her retirement during that forbearance, and her maintenance of the household in return for a share in the defendant’s retirement benefits and other assets earned during the period of forbearance … . Since the plaintiff also alleged that the defendant breached the alleged agreement and that she has sustained damages as a result of that breach, at this pleading stage, the eighth cause of action must survive dismissal … .

The fact that the alleged agreement was made by an unmarried couple living together does not render it unenforceable. “New York courts have long accepted the concept that an express agreement between unmarried persons living together is as enforceable as though they were not living together, provided only that illicit sexual relations were not part of the consideration of the contract'” … . “[W]hile cohabitation without marriage does not give rise to the property and financial rights which normally attend the marital relation, neither does cohabitation disable the parties from making an agreement within the normal rules of contract law” … . Dee v Rakower, 2013 NY Slip Op 07443, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been Applied to Breach of Contract Damages (Even Though the Monthly Payments Were Deposited in an Escrow Account During Litigation)

The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been awarded prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for breach of contract at the statutory 9% rate, not the contractual 18% rate which was included in the agreed monthly installment payments:

…CPLR 5001(a) mandates an award of prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for its breach of contract even though the monthly payments due were deposited in an escrow account during the pendency of this action, and [defendant] received no benefit from the disputed payments while they were held in escrow … . However, the Surrogate’s Court improperly applied interest on the monthly payments due at the rate of 18% per annum. “When a claim is predicated on a breach of contract, the applicable rate of prejudgment interest varies depending on the nature and terms of the contract” … . The contract rate of interest will be “used to calculate interest on principal prior to loan maturity or a default in performance,” and in the absence of “a provision in the contract addressing the interest rate that governs after principal is due or in the event of a breach, New York’s statutory rate will be applied as the default rate” … . Under the terms of the agreement at issue here, each monthly payment includes interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since the contract rate has already been applied to each monthly payment prior to its maturity, and the agreement does not include a provision addressing the interest rate that governs after each monthly payment is due or in the event of a breach, the Surrogate’s Court should have applied interest upon each monthly payment from the date it became due at the statutory rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004…). Ross v Ross Metals Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 07466, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Prior Stipulation Based Upon Inaccurate Information Properly Vacated

In a divorce proceeding, the Fourth Department upheld Supreme Court’s vacating the child support and maintenance provisions of a prior stipulation, finding that the wife had not disclosed all of her assets and earnings at the time the stipulation was entered.  The Fourth Department also upheld $50,000 of imputed annual income assigned to the wife by Supreme Court:

… [T]he court did not err in vacating the child support and maintenance provisions of the parties’ October 2009 stipulation.  In that stipulation, the parties had agreed to impute income to the wife in the amount of $15,000, and the husband had agreed to maintenance and child support awards to the wife based on that imputed income.  Although “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (…see generally CPLR 2104), “[a] stipulation of settlement 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 unjust because of the other spouse’s overreaching” … .  We agree with the court that “a reasonable inference exists that the [wife did not] fully disclose[] h[er] financial assets . . . , and, as a result, the terms of the agreement were so inequitable as to be manifestly unfair to the [husband]” … . …[T]he wife had over $100,000 more in income than was imputed to her in the stipulation, and her income was more than two times what the husband had earned in any of the years before the stipulation.  We thus conclude that, regardless whether the wife can be said to have committed fraud, the wife’s failure to disclose her earnings in the stock market resulted in an agreement that was manifestly unfair to the husband.  Marlinski v Marlinski, 979, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

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