You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

Issues to Be Determined in Inquest After Default in Contract Action Explained; Viability of Fraud Cause of Action in Action Based on Contract Explained

In a contract action, the Third Department noted that: (1) a limitation of liability clause in a contract can be raised by the defaulting party after a default in the inquest on damages; (2) the court can determine whether the defaulting party stated valid causes of action; and (3) allegations of deceptive practices aimed at the general public state a cause of action under General Business Law 349.  In explaining why the fraud cause of action was valid in this contract-based case, the Third Department wrote:

In order to recover on the third cause of action for fraud, the defrauded party must allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact known to be false and made with the intent to deceive, as well as justifiable reliance and damages … .  While it is the general rule that “[a] separate cause of action seeking damages for fraud cannot stand when the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract” …, defendants’ allegations of fraud do not concern any express terms of the contract or third-party defendants’ failure to perform those term ….  Rather, defendants allege that third-party defendants fraudulently induced them into entering the contract by falsely representing that they were skilled, competent and experienced in providing construction management services.  Those allegations are not redundant of the breach of contract cause of action, which claims that third-party defendants failed to perform the terms of the contract … .  Defendants also alleged that they relied on the representations …, and the allegations permit us to infer that the reliance was justified.  Nor is there anything in the complaint or contract that would suggest that their reliance was unjustified … .  84 Lumber Co LP v Barringer…, 516235, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract Rights Explained in Context of Requirement that Health Insurers Reimburse Customers Pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4308

Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff health insurer on the ground that certain portions of Insurance Law section 4308 constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights.  The Third Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted (on grounds unrelated to a determination of constitutionality).  In the course of the decision, the court explained the constitutional analytical criteria:

Plaintiff is a not-for-profit health insurer that offers various types of health insurance to its subscribers, including – insofar as is relevant here – community-rated, large-group insurance and health maintenance organization policies. Historically, insurers such as plaintiff were required to obtain prior approval from the Superintendent of Insurance1 before increasing or decreasing premium rates (see Insurance Law former § 4308 [c] [1]…).  In 1995, however, the Legislature replaced this system with a “file and use” methodology, whereby insurers could increase or decrease premiums at their discretion, so long as the “anticipated incurred loss ratio” for the affected insurance pool fell within statutory minimum and maximum percentages… .  If the actual loss ratio fell below the statutory minimum, the insurer was required to “issue a refund to its subscribers or credit a dividend against future premiums”; if the actual loss ratio exceeded the statutory maximum, the insurer “increase[d] its premium rates accordingly”… .

In response to growing concerns that steady increases in premium rates were making health insurance less affordable, the Legislature amended Insurance Law § 4308 again in 2010 (see L 2010, ch 107, § 2) – reinstating the prior approval requirement and setting the minimum loss ratio for all coverage pools at 82% loss ratio for its large-group coverage pools fell below the 82% requirement.  As a result, defendant Superintendent of Financial Services directed that plaintiff issue refunds or credits totaling $3,349,976 to policyholders enrolled in community-rated large-group contracts. * * *

US Constitution, article I, § 10 provides that “[n]o [s]tate shall . . . pass any . . . [l]aw impairing the [o]bligation of [c]ontracts.”  The prohibition contained in the Contract Clause, however, is not absolute, as states “retain the power to safeguard the vital interests of [their] people” … .  “Thus, the [s]tate may impair [private] contracts by subsequent legislation or regulation so long as it is reasonably necessary to further an important public purpose and the measures taken that impair the contract are reasonable and appropriate to effectuate that purpose” … .  Analysis of a claimed Contract Clause violation “require[s] consideration of three factors: (1) whether the contractual impairment is in fact substantial; if so, (2) whether the law serves a significant public purpose, such as remedying a general social or economic problem; and, if such a public purpose is demonstrated, (3) whether the means chosen to accomplish this purpose are reasonable and appropriate”… . Healthnow New York Inc … v NYS Insurance Dept, 516179, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Nonsignatory Could Not Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under Direct Benefit Estoppel Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversed the appellate division and determined a party who was not a signatory to an agreement which included an arbitration clause could not be compelled to arbitrate under the direct benefit estoppel doctrine.  In explaining the doctrine, the court wrote:

Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits” the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement … .

Where the benefits are merely “indirect,” a nonsignatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate a claim.  A benefit is indirect where the nonsignatory exploits the contractual relation of the parties, but not the agreement itself … .  Matter of Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc, 149, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Damage to Building Caused By Excavation Next Door Constituted “Vandalism”

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals answered two certified questions from the Second Circuit.  The case involved damage to a building caused by the excavation of a parking garage next door. The question was whether the damage could fall within the meaning of “vandalism” in the building owner’s insurance policy, even though the alleged acts were not directed at the damaged building.  The Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative:

It is true that, in some cases of alleged vandalism not directed at particular property, the term does not intuitively seem to fit.  … The word vandalism, which derives from the sack of Rome by the original Vandals in 455 AD (see IV, Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at 246-248 [Folio Society 1986]), more readily brings to mind people who smash and loot than business owners who seek their own profit in disregard of the injury they do to the property of others.  We conclude, however, that there is no principled distinction between the two.  An excavator who is paid to dig a hole, and does so in conscious disregard of likely damage to the building next door, is, for these purposes, not essentially different from an irresponsible youth who might dig a hole on the same property, with the same effect, whether in search of buried treasure or just for fun. …

In common speech, and by the express terms of the policy in suit, vandalism is “malicious” damage to property.  The Second Circuit’s second question asks, in essence, what state of mind amounts to “malice” for these purposes.  We answer by adopting, insofar as it relates to property damage, the formulation we have used in reviewing awards of punitive damages. Conduct is “malicious” for these purposes when it reflects “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that [it] may be called willful or wanton”… .  Georgitsi Realty LLC v Penn-Starr Insurance Co, 156, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care to Elevator User

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against a company with a contract to maintain an elevator.  The elevator escape door and debris fell on plaintiff.  The court explained that the existence of a contract did not rule out that the company owed a duty of care to the plaintiff:

” Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party'” … . “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … Exceptions to this general rule exist “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launch[e]s a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties[;] and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, [defendant] failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that no questions of fact existed as whether it failed to exercise reasonable care while repairing the subject elevator and whether it thereby launched a force or instrument of harm that caused the accident… . Dautaj v Alliance El Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 06657, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, , ,

Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 75 petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration (with respect to a collective bargaining agreement [CBA]), the Fourth Department explained the operative analysis:

In determining whether an issue is subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a court must apply the two-step analysis set forth in Matter of Acting Supt. of Schs. of Liverpool Cent. Sch. Dist. (United Liverpool Faculty Assn.) (42 NY2d 509, 513).  “First, a court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … .  If the court determines that there is no such prohibition and thus that the parties have the authority to arbitrate the grievance, it proceeds to the second step, in which it must determine whether that authority was in fact exercised, i.e., whether the CBA demonstrates that the parties agreed to refer this type of dispute to arbitration … .  With respect to the second step, where there is a broad arbitration clause such as the one in the CBA at issue, “[a] determination of arbitrability is limited to ‘whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” … .  “Succinctly, the test centers on two distinct inquiries as to the public parties’ purported entry into the arbitral forum:  may they do so and, if yes, did they do so” … .  Here, with respect to the issue whether petitioner properly followed the procedures mandated by the CBA in terminating the employee in question, we conclude that the court properly determined that the parties had the authority to agree to arbitrate this grievance, and that they in fact agreed to do so.  Matter of Arbitration…, 1019, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Separation Agreement Found Unconscionable

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s vacation of a separation agreement finding insufficient evidence the agreement was signed under duress but determining the terms of the agreement were unconscionable:

“ ‘Judicial review [of separation agreements] is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions’ ” … . “[S]eparation agreements will be scrutinized ‘to see to it that they are arrived at fairly and equitably, in a manner so as to be free from the taint of fraud and duress, and to set aside or refuse to enforce those born of and subsisting in inequity’ ” … .  “A separation agreement ‘may be vacated if it is manifestly unfair to one party because of the other’s overreaching or where its terms are unconscionable’ ” … .

We agree with defendant that plaintiff did not sign the agreement under duress.  Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant threatened to evict her from the marital residence if she did not sign the agreement and that he threw the agreement at her are not substantiated by proof sufficient to justify setting it aside … .  Further, even accepting plaintiff’s allegation that defendant persistently urged her to sign the agreement, such conduct does not constitute duress, particularly inasmuch as plaintiff signed the agreement after defendant revised it in accordance with her suggested changes.

We conclude, however, that the court properly determined that the agreement was “ ‘one such as no [person] in his [or her] senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair [person] would accept on the other’ ” … .  As defendant correctly concedes, the agreement gives him almost all of the marital property, including his pension and retirement assets, and we note that the value of the pension and retirement assets is not apparent from the record because defendant failed to include a copy of his net worth statement.  The agreement further provides that plaintiff may not seek maintenance and, most troubling under the circumstances of this case, that plaintiff waived her right to seek child support. Dawes v Dawes, 886, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Error to Dismiss Failure-to-Mitigate-Damages Affirmative Defense in Contract Dispute

In a contract dispute, the Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the defendant-Everfoam’s affirmative defense alleging plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, noting that the duty to mitigate arises from the common law and need not be expressly bargained for in the contract:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in awarding summary judgment dismissing Everfoam’s fourth affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, based on its determination that “no such duty exists within the parties’ contract.” To the contrary, the duty to mitigate damages arising from a breach of contract is a duty that arises from common law and, therefore, need not be expressly bargained for in a contract to be enforceable … . Accordingly, assuming liability, Everfoam should be entitled to limit damages, if any, if the plaintiffs failed to make “reasonable exertions to minimize the injury” … . Mack-Cali Realty LP v Everfoam Insulation Sys Ind, 2013 NY Slip Op 06348, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

,

Cognizable Counterclaim for Breach of Domestic Partnership Stated

In finding defendant had stated a legally cognizable counterclaim for breach of a domestic partnership agreement, the Fourth Department explained:

With respect to domestic partnership agreements, “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’ ” … .  Additionally, there is no statutory requirement that such a contract be in writing … .  We conclude that here defendant sufficiently pleaded counterclaims for breach of a domestic partnership agreement and that the court therefore erred in dismissing the fourth and fifth counterclaims … . Ramos v Hughes, 866, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

, ,

Question of Fact About Whether Horse Owner Liable for Injuries to Novice Rider

The Fourth Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the owners of a horse which allegedly brushed up against a tree, injuring the novice rider.  The court explained that the “knowledge of vicious propensities” doctrine applied here because there was evidence the defendants knew the horse had a propensity to ride too close to trees, the general release signed by plaintiff was void as against public policy, and the defendants did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff had assumed the increased risk of horseback riding alleged here:

It is well settled that “the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … .  “[A]n animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” (id. at 447).  In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, wherein she testified that defendant and a guide employed by the Ranch instructed plaintiff to push off of the trees if the horse walked too closely to the trees on the single-file woodland trail.  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants conclusively demonstrated that plaintiff executed the release, we conclude that, under these circumstances, where the riding lesson was ancillary to the recreational activity of horseback riding, General Obligations Law § 5-326 renders the release void as against public policy… .* * *

Finally, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risk of horseback riding.  Horseback riding “[p]articipants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks” … .  Here, defendants submitted evidence that raised a question of fact whether they unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by using a bitless bridle on their horses, which did not provide plaintiff with the ability to control the horse, and by failing to give plaintiff, who was a novice rider, adequate instructions on how to control the horse … .  Vandeerbrook v Emerald Springs Ranch…, 855, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

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