You are here: / Contract Law
,

Portions of Covenant Not to Compete Unenforceable/Liquidated Damages Clause Constituted a Penalty

The Fourth Department determined a covenant not to compete was ambiguous with respect to the scope of prohibited activity, unenforceable to the extent it attempted to bind third parties, and the liquidated damages clause in the covenant was an unenforceable penalty:

…[T]he liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.  Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they constitute “ ‘an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … .  Typically, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … .  However, if the clause provides for damages “ ‘plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .   Here, although the amount of actual damages is incapable of precise estimation, the amount of liquidated damages was grossly disproportionate to the probable loss and was designed to penalize plaintiff for his interference with the Agreement, as well as the interference of others with the Agreement.  Moreover, the liquidated damages clause here eliminates the balance due under the Agreement based on minor breaches of the covenant not to compete such that it is an “unconscionable penalty and should not be enforced” … .  Del Nero v Colvin…, 911, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

Contract Which Theoretically Could Be Completed in a Year, Even If Highly Unlikely, Survives Statute of Frauds Defense

The Fourth Department determined a contract which could possibly be performed in a year, even though such performance is unlikely, survives the statute of frauds defense:

…[D]efendants contend that Supreme Court erred in determining that an alleged oral agreement between the parties is not void and unenforceable pursuant to the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]…).  The alleged oral agreement provided that defendants would purchase plaintiff’s business for $480,000 and make an initial payment of $10,000, followed by 23 monthly payments of $20,000 and a final payment of $10,000.  No party asserted that prepayment of the purchase price was prohibited under the alleged oral agreement.  Plaintiff asserted that she fully performed her obligations under the alleged oral agreement and that defendants made several payments thereunder before defaulting. …

Taking plaintiff’s “allegations as true and resolv[ing] all inferences which reasonably flow therefrom in [her] favor” …, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion.  “As long as [an] agreement may be ‘fairly and reasonably interpreted’ such that it may be performed within a year, the [s]tatute of [f]rauds will not act as a bar [to enforcing it] however unexpected, unlikely, or even improbable that such performance will occur during that time frame” … .  Here, the absence of a term prohibiting payment in full within the first year makes possible full performance of the alleged oral agreement within that year, and thus defendants did not meet their burden of establishing that the statute of frauds renders the alleged oral agreement void and unenforceable… . DeJohn v Speech, Language & Communication Associates …, 1082, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

, , , , ,

“At Will” Clause in Employment Contract Precluded Action Based Upon Promissory Estoppel, Fraud and Negligent Representation/Criteria for Tortious Interference With Contract and Prima Facie Tort Not Met

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint brought by a doctor against the hospital where he was employed and the doctor who supervised him.  The plaintiff was hired pursuant to an agreement which included an “at will” clause allowing termination without cause upon 60 days notice. Plaintiff was terminated upon 90 days notice. Plaintiff sued the hospital for promissory estoppel, fraud, and negligent representation.  Plaintiff sued his supervisor [Hussain] for tortious interference with contract and prima facie tort:

Plaintiff’s claims against the hospital all required a showing that, among other things, he reasonably relied on any alleged promises or misrepresentations made to him by the hospital … .  In this regard, we note that “[w]here, as here, ‘a plaintiff is offered only at-will employment, he or she will generally be unable to establish reasonable reliance on a prospective employer’s representations'” … . * * * Inasmuch as any oral assurances made by the hospital as to the security of plaintiff’s position could not have altered the at-will nature of the employment contract, the hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claims against it, shifting the burden to plaintiff “‘to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action’”… . * * *

… [A] claim of tortious interference with contract requires (1) the existence of a valid contract between a plaintiff and a third party, (2) a defendant’s knowledge of such contract, (3) the intentional inducement of a breach of that contract, and (4) damages … .  Significantly, as the contract here was terminable at will, plaintiff was also required to “show that [Hussain] employed wrongful means, such as fraud, misrepresentation or threats[,] to effect the termination of employment”… .No such showing was made here. * * *

“[Prima facie tort] requires a showing of an intentional infliction of harm, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts that would otherwise be lawful . . . and that malevolence was the sole motivating factor” … .  Considering plaintiff’s acknowledgment that Hussain prevented him from examining patients as a result of complaints made by patients who wanted to be treated by Hussain and not plaintiff, plaintiff could not establishthat Hussain’s actions were motivated solely by “disinterested malevolence”… . Hobler v Hussain…, 516381, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

,

Material Breach and Abandonment of Subcontract Waived Notice of Termination and Opportunity to Cure and Warranted Cost-to-Complete Damages

The First Department explained the criteria for cost-to-complete damages for a subcontractor’s breach before completion of performance.  The court noted that plaintiff was not entitled to overpayment damages in addition to the cost-to-complete damages because receipt of both would amount to a double recovery:

Defendants are entitled to cost-to-complete damages because plaintiff materially breached and abandoned the subcontract, and waived any right to notice of termination or an opportunity to cure. The subcontract explicitly provides that time is of the essence, that plaintiff’s delay or failure to meet scheduling requirements warrants termination, and that plaintiff must perform work even if the parties dispute that work’s characterization, yet plaintiff repeatedly failed to timely perform and complete work, despite defendant E-J Electric Installation Co.’s repeated demands … . Among other material breaches, plaintiff repudiated the subcontract by abandoning the work site when only 73.49% of plaintiff’s work was complete … . Accordingly, plaintiff waived any right to notice of termination … .

It is well-settled that if a subcontractor breaches before completing performance, the contractor is entitled to recover reliance, or cost-to-complete damages from the subcontractor… . Kleinberg Elec Inc v E-J Elec Installation Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07256, 1st Dept 11-7-13

 

,

Remedies Re: Purchase and Sale of Furniture Controlled by UCC

In affirming the grant of summary judgment on a breach of contract cause of action  regarding the purchase of furniture accepted by the defendant, the Third Department explained the relevant law under the UCC:

Because the transaction predominantly involved the sale of goods, the parties’ rights and remedies are governed by UCC article 2 … .  The parties’ oral contract is enforceable because both parties acknowledge the existence of that contract (see UCC 2-201 [3] [b]).  The UCC provides that acceptance of goods takes place, among other ways, when the buyer fails to reject them after having a reasonable opportunity to inspect them (see UCC 2-606 [1] [b]…).  A buyer must pay for accepted goods at the contract rate (see UCC 2-607 [1]), but may eliminate or diminish the amount claimed by a seller by asserting a valid counterclaim for breach of the sales agreement … .  Where a seller has allegedly breached the contract, a buyer who has accepted the goods “must within a reasonable time after he [or she] discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy” (UCC 2-607 [3] [a]…).

Plaintiff met its burden on the summary judgment motion by submitting proof that it delivered and installed the furniture, defendant accepted the furniture by retaining it without attempting to return it, and defendant only paid the $13,250 down payment on the $44,330.21 contract… .  Accent Commercial Furniture Inc v P. Schneider & Associates, PLLC, 515940, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

Punitive Damages Not Available in Contract Action Absent Independent Tort

The Third Department determined plaintiff had not pled a tort cause of action independent of the breach of contract cause of action and therefore was not entitled to punitive damages.  The plaintiff had alleged defendant insurance company engaged in bad faith by failing to promptly investigate his no-fault claim and failing to renew his insurance policy:

Although “damages arising from the breach of a contract will ordinarily be limited to the contract damages necessary to redress the private wrong, . . . punitive damages may be recoverable if necessary to vindicate a public right” …, but only where a defendant’s conduct was (1) actionable as an independent tort, (2) egregious, (3) directed toward the plaintiff and (4) part of a pattern directed at the public … .  Thus, “[w]here a lawsuit has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, the threshold task for a court considering [a] defendant’s motion to dismiss a cause of action for punitive damages is to identify a tort independent of the contract” … .  In this regard, a “defendant may be liable in tort when it has breached a duty of reasonable care distinct from its contractual obligations, or when it has engaged in tortious conduct separate and apart from its failure to fulfill its contractual obligations” … .  Nonetheless, “where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie” … .

Here, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages based upon his allegation that defendant engaged in “bad faith tactics” by failing to promptly investigate his no-fault claim and failing to renew his insurance policy.  Such claim does not allege a breach of duty distinct from defendant’s contractual obligations. Further, while plaintiff alleged a violation of Insurance Law § 2601 based upon defendant’s purported failure to timely investigate his no-fault claim, New York does not recognize a private cause of action under that statute… . Dinstber v Allstate Insurance Company, 515653, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

, ,

Affirmative Defense of Arbitration Waived by Participation in Judicial Process

The Third Department determined that defendant waived a contractual provision requiring arbitration by participating in the judicial process:

…[W]hile defendant asserted the contractual arbitration provision as an affirmative defense in its answer, it did not move to stay the action and compel arbitration (see CPLR 7503 [a]).  Instead, it aggressively participated in the discovery process and received the benefit of extensive discovery from plaintiff, which would not otherwise have been available in arbitration … . In doing so, defendant’s acceptance of the judicial forum “manifested a preference ‘clearly inconsistent with . . . [a] claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration'” … .  Thus, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that defendant’s actions resulted in a waiver of its right to compel arbitration … . Masson v Wiggins & Masson LLP…, 515340, 515427, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

No Ambiguity in Contract; No Resort to Extrinsic Evidence

In affirming the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a contract action, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria concerning whether extrinsic evidence should be considered:

“[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms. Evidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing” … . Thus, “before looking to evidence of what was in the parties’ minds, a court must give due weight to what was in their contract” … . “A contract should be read as a whole to ensure that undue emphasis is not placed upon particular words and phrases” … . “Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law and extrinsic evidence may not be considered unless the document itself is ambiguous” … . “Moreover, courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to show any ambiguity in the subject contract that would permit consideration of the proffered extrinsic evidence of an alleged oral agreement to clarify the meaning of [a] term … .  Outstanding Transp Inc v Interagency Council of Mental Retardation & Dev Disabilities, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07020, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

 

Letters Between Attorney and City Re: Fees Did Not Create Unilateral Contract

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint seeking attorneys fees from the City for the defense of a police officer who allegedly pointed a loaded weapon at a coworker.  At one point the City and the defense attorney exchanged letters concerning the lawyer’s fees and the City offered to pay the defense attorney $150.00 an hour.  The breach of contract cause of action was based on those letters.  In addition to determining there was no contract, the Third Department explained the flaws in the promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and fraud causes of action. In finding that the letters did not constitute a contract, the Third Department wrote:

“For a contract to be created, regardless of whether it is bilateral or unilateral, ‘there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms'” … . Price is a material term of a contract … ..

The complaint here alleges that [the City’s] letters constituted a unilateral contract whereby [the City] agreed to pay [defense counsel] at the rate of $150 per hour, and that the contract became binding when [defense counsel] performed under the contract by representing [the officer].  Plaintiffs cannot prevail because their allegations are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence.  [Defense counsel’s] invoice billed defendant at the rate of $350 per hour for his time and at other rates – all higher than listed in his ….estimate – for his staff.  This invoice contradicts plaintiffs’ assertion that the parties had agreed on all material terms of a contract, namely a price of $150 per hour … .   As documentary evidence refutes the allegations and establishes that no valid contract had been formed, Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract… . DerOhannesian v City of Albany, 515875, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint.  Plaintiffs contended the floor share price in the “notwithstanding” clause of the contract was an error, and submitted a supporting email referring to a different price in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court agreed that the email was sufficient to overcome the dismissal motion and explained the powerful legal effect of a “notwithstanding” clause and the criteria for reformation of a contract:

It is well settled that trumping language such as a “notwithstanding” provision “controls over any contrary language” in a contract … . This Court has likewise noted that “inconsistency provisions” — i.e. those that dictate which of two contract provisions should prevail in the event of an inconsistency — “are frequently enforced by courts” … .

In construing statutes and contracts, the U.S. Supreme Court has remarked that “the use of . . . a notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions of any other section” … . Thus, the effect of a “notwithstanding” clause will prevail “even if other provisions of the contract[] might seem to require . . . a [conflicting] result” … . * * *

Before a court will grant reformation of a contract, the party demanding this equitable remedy ” must establish his right to such relief by clear, positive and convincing evidence'” … . The purpose of reformation is not to “alleviat[e] a hard or oppressive bargain, but rather to restate the intended terms of an agreement when the writing that memorializes that agreement is at variance with the intent of both parties” … . In order to “overcome the heavy presumption” that the contract embodies the parties’ true intent, the party seeking reformation must “show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties” … . Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund LP v GeoResources, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06826, 1st Dept 10-22-13

 

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