You are here: / Contract Law
,

A SELLER WHO BREACHES OR SABOTAGES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT CANNOT RELY ON REMEDY LIMITATION CLAUSES TO PRECLUDE A BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that remedy limitation clauses in contracts will not be enforced on behalf of a party who breaches the contract,, acts in bad faith or deliberately sabotages the contract. Here the defendant argued the remedy limitation clause precluded plaintiff’s action for specific performance. But the complaint alleged defendant failed to appear at the closing and otherwise acted prevented the sale bad faith:

“Where . . . a seller sabotages efforts to close the deal, remedy limitation clauses in the contract of sale do not bar a buyer from obtaining specific performance” … . Further, “[a] vendor of real property who breaches the contract of sale in bad faith cannot limit the damages recoverable by the injured purchaser by relying on a contractual limitation” … . Saadia v National Socy. of Hebrew Day Schs., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01571, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: In a real estate deal, a seller who deliberately sabotages the contract cannot rely on remedy limitation clauses to preclude a buyer’s action for specific performance.

 

,

THE AMENDED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT SUPERSEDED THE PRIOR ORAL SIDE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT INCLUDED AN UNAMBIGUOUS INTEGRATION AND MERGER CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the amended Limited Liability Company (LLC) agreement with an integration and merger clause superseded the prior oral side agreement, called an exit opportunity agreement:

… [T]he amended LLC agreement contains a clear and unambiguous integration and merger clause providing that it “constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein and therein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter;” the “subject matter” being the “allocation of profits and losses among the Members, distributions among the Members, [and] the rights, obligations and interests of the Members to each other and to the Company” … . * * *

… [T]he merger clause explicitly states that the amended LLC agreement supersedes all prior written and oral agreements concerning the subject matter of the amended LLC agreement … . Behler v Kai-Shing Tao, 2024 NY Slip Op 01337, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: Here the unambiguous integration and merger clause in the amended Limited Liability Company agreement precluded enforcement of a prior oral side agreement. Although the issue here appears simple, it was the subject of a full-fledged majority opinion and a full-fledged two-justice dissenting opinion.

 

, ,

THE SIGHTSEEING BUS COMPANY’S COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING CONCERTED ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR BY OTHER BUS COMPANIES IN VIOLATION OF THE DONNELLY ACT (GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 340) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the counterclaims by a tour bus company, Go New York, alleging anti-competitive behavior in violation of the Donnelly Act by other bus companies, called the Gray Line respondents, should not have been dismissed:

The Donnelly Act prohibits “[e]very contract, agreement, arrangement or combination” through which “a monopoly . . . is or may be established or maintained,” whereby “competition or the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of business . . . is or may be restrained,” or whereby trade or business is or may be restrained “[f]or the purpose of establishing or maintaining any such monopoly or unlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce” (General Business Law § 340 [1]). As with a claim brought “under its essentially similar federal progenitor, section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC § 1 et seq),” a claim brought under the Donnelly Act, at a minimum, “must allege both concerted action by two or more entities and a consequent restraint of trade within an identified relevant product market” … . The Court has recognized that “the sweep of Donnelly may be broader than that of Sherman” insofar as the Donnelly Act proscribes “arrangements” in addition to contracts, combinations, and conspiracies … . …

Go New York alleges that the Gray Line respondents conspired with other counterclaim defendants (which Go New York refers to as “Big Bus/Leisure Pass”), to leverage their market share to “shut out” Go New York from the “hop-on, hop-off sightseeing tour bus market.” According to the facts asserted—which we must accept as true on this motion—representatives from various New York City attractions refused to do business with Go New York after Gray Line and Big Bus/Leisure Pass impugned Go New York’s reputation and threatened to end their business with those attractions if they did business with Go New York. Go New York also alleged that, although certain attractions referenced exclusive relationships with either Gray Line or Big Bus/Leisure Pass as a basis not to partner with Go New York, the attractions in fact partnered with both. Thus, it can be inferred that the claimed exclusive relationships were a pretext to cover for anticompetitive efforts to exclude Go New York. Although sparse, these factual assertions and all the possible inferences to be drawn therefrom are sufficient to allege concerted action between two or more entities and support a cognizable Donnelly Act counterclaim under our liberal notice pleading standards … . Taxi Tours Inc. v Go N.Y. Tours, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01333, CtApp 3-14-24

Practice Point: The allegations here were deemed sufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of the Donnelly Act, which prohibits concerted anti-competitive behavior by businesses designed to exclude a competing business from the market.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME IS THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AND HAD SIGNED THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT AS THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY;” THE LANGUAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CREATE AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER; THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE ENFORCED BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s (the Facility’s) motion to compel arbitration of the wrongful death action should not have been granted. The admission agreement had been signed by plaintiff, not the decedent (the resident of the nursing home). The admission agreement referred to plaintiff as the “responsible party” who was “primarily responsible to assist the [decedent] to meet … her obligations under [the agreement].” But there was no indication the decedent agreed to have plaintiff act on her behalf:

“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 [her or] his own acts imbue [herself or] 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. Moreover, a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … .

… [T]he Facility failed to demonstrate that it reasonably relied upon any word or action of the decedent to conclude that the plaintiff had the apparent authority to enter into the agreement or to bind the decedent to arbitration on the decedent’s behalf … . To the extent that the Facility contends that it reasonably relied upon the plaintiff’s own acts, this contention is also without merit, as an agent cannot “by [her] own acts imbue [her]self with apparent authority” … . … [T]he plaintiff’s status as the decedent’s daughter did not give rise to an agency relationship … . Lisi v New York Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, 2024 NY Slip Op 01171, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: Here decedent’s daughter signed the nursing-home admission agreement as the “responsible party.” Because there was no indication decedent agreed to have her daughter act on her behalf, the nursing home could not claim the daughter had the “apparent authority” to bind decedent to the agreement. Therefore the nursing home could not enforce the arbitration clause in the wrongful death action.

 

, ,

THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the condition attached to the sale of a lot by decedent to plaintiff, i.e., that a single-family home be built on the lot, benefited both parties and therefore could not be waived by the plaintiff alone. Plaintiff was unable to procure a building permit but elected to proceed with the sale. The decedent cancelled the sale Plaintiff then brought an action for specific performance which Supreme Court granted:

The contract of sale between the plaintiff and the decedent for the subject property provided in a rider that it was subject to the plaintiff obtaining an as-of-right building permit to build a single-family residence. The plaintiff was subsequently unable to obtain a building permit because a covenant of conditions had never been filed to complete the process of subdividing Norman’s single parcel into the two parcels referred to as 112 Jessup Lane and 114 Jessup Lane. The plaintiff’s and the decedent’s efforts to have the covenant filed so as to complete the subdivision process failed. * * *

Generally, “the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted in an agreement may waive the condition and accept performance as is” … . “However, where the relevant circumstances reveal that the condition has been inserted for the benefit of both parties to the agreement, either party may validly cancel the contract upon failure of the condition, and the condition may be waived only by the mutual assent of both parties” … . …

Inasmuch as the building permit could only be obtained if the subdivision of the property were completed, that condition cannot be interpreted as existing solely for the benefit of the plaintiff where the decedent retained an interest in the other lot to be included in the subdivision … . D&J Realty Partners, LLC v Booth, 2024 NY Slip Op 01169, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: With respect to the sale of real property, if a condition of the sale, here the construction of a single-family residence on the lot to be sold, benefits only one party, the condition can be waived by that party. Here, however, the condition benefitted both parties and could only be waived by the consent of both.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF A CONTRACT BASED ON A SCRIVENER’S ERROR HAD PASSED; THE CLEAR ERROR PRODUCED AN ABSURD RESULT WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED OR CONDONED BY THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding defendant “indemnitor” liable as guarantor of a $44 million debt should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the term “borrower,” instead of “indemnitor,” was mistakenly used to indicate the identity of the guarantor of the loan. Although the statute of limitations on the alleged “scrivener’s error” action had run, to interpret the language of the guaranty in the manner argued by defendant (i.e., “borrower” was the intended term) resulted in an absurdity, which would have rendered the loan unguaranteed:

… [A] court may correct a scrivener’s error outside of a claim for reformation of a contract in “those limited instances where some absurdity has been identified or the contract would otherwise be unenforceable either in whole or in part” … . In other words, a court is not “constrained to adopt an absurd phrasing in the contract merely because the statute of limitations for reformation had passed, when the error is obvious and the drafters’ intention clear” … . * * *

… [A] guaranty must be read in the context of the loan agreement and “in a manner that accords the words their ‘fair and reasonable meaning,’ and achieves ‘a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties'” … . In other words, a “contract should not be interpreted to produce a result that is absurd, commercially unreasonable or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties” … . NCCMI, Inc. v Bersin Props., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01161, First Dept 3-5-24

Practice Point: A clear-cut scrivener’s error in a contract which produces an absurd result the parties could not have intended will not be adopted or condoned by a court, despite the running of the statute of limitations on a contract-reformation cause of action.

 

, ,

THE CONTRACTOR WHICH UNDERTOOK THE DUTY TO INSTALL FLOORING WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THAT DUTY WITH REASONABLE CARE; THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD A SEPARATE NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SAFE WHICH MAY ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE TO BE IMPUTED TO THE OWNER; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) defendant contractor (AW&S) undertook the duty to install flooring and was therefore required to perform that duty with reasonable care, and (2) the owner of the property (UJA) had a separate, nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe. There was evidence AW&S failed to secure portions of the flooring it installed and that failure was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s trip and fall. Defendants did not present any evidence of when the floor was last inspected prior to the fall and therefore did not demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the defect:

Defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not negligent in the installation and maintenance of the Masonite flooring on which plaintiff tripped and fell … . Although defendants claim that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused plaintiff’s injuries, the record establishes that defendant owner … (UJA) requested that defendant … (AW&S) protect the floors during a renovation project in its building for which AW&S served as general contractor. … AW&S specifically undertook responsibility for the installation, maintenance, and inspection of the protective Masonite flooring while it was on site, and the project superintendent noted that there were sections of Masonite that lacked duct tape securing it to the floor in the area where plaintiff tripped and fell. Based on this testimony, there are questions of fact as to whether AW&S’s failure to secure the Masonite, or to note that it was not secured upon inspection, was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . … [W]here a defendant has undertaken a specific duty, it is obligated to perform that duty with reasonable care or be liable for any hazards it creates … . UJA, as owner, has a separate, nondelegable duty to maintain its premises, and AW&S’s negligent maintenance of the Masonite, if established, could be imputed to UJA …

Defendants also failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of the condition. Neither defendant offered evidence of maintenance and inspection records despite testimony that the duct tape on the Masonite required routine replacement when it became curled or wet … .  …[P]laintiff was not required to establish how long the condition existed … . Bolson v UJA-FED Props. Inc., Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 00966, First Dept 2-27-24

Practice Point: A contractor which assumes the duty to do work, here floor-installation, is required to do so with reasonable care.

Practice Point: The property owner which hires a contractor to do work has a separate nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe such that a contractor’s negligence may be imputed to the owner.

 

,

THE PURPORTED ORAL ASSIGNMENT OF A SUBLEASE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR VIOLATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE CRITERIA FOR AN ASSIGNMENT “BY OPERATION OF LAW” WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPARTMENT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the oral assignment of a sublease was invalid under the statute of frauds and there was no assignment “by operation of law:”

An oral assignment of the sublease here would have to satisfy the statute of frauds, which requires the assignment of such a sublease (for more than one year) to be in writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[2] …). Although, in the absence of a written assignment, a presumption of “assignment by operation of law” sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds may be created by a “tenant in possession” paying rent … , such as where a tenant pays the full rent for some extended period of time … , no such presumption applies in the circumstances here. The terms of the sublease allowed for a sublease/occupation but expressly forbade oral assignments and included a “no waiver” clause, and the occupancy and payments by [defendant]  here was not conduct “unequivocally referrable” to any purported agreement by the parties to orally modify the no oral assignment term … . Innerworkings, Inc. v Arik Eshel CPA & Assoc. P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-27-24

Practice Point: An oral assignment of a sublease for more than a year violates the statute of frauds.

Practice Point: Payment of rent for an extended period of time may satisfy the statute of frauds “by operation of law” (not the case here).

 

, , ,

THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim for lost profits should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and the counterclaim must be dismissed because defendant did not demonstrate consequential damages for lost profits was contemplated by the parties when the contract for the sale of goods was entered. The contract was for the sale of military ordnance (target practice rounds) for the Mexican Navy. In its counterclaim, the defendant alleged the goods were not timely delivered and were not accepted by the Mexican Navy:

Lost profits are a form of consequential damages that a buyer, such as the defendant, may recover if “the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know [of them] and which could not reasonably [have been] prevented by cover or otherwise” (UCC 2-715[2][a] …). “To determine whether consequential damages were reasonably contemplated by the parties, ‘the nature, purpose and particular circumstances of the contract known by the parties should be considered, as well as what liability the defendant fairly may be supposed to have assumed consciously, or to have warranted the plaintiff reasonably to suppose that it assumed, when the contract was made'” … . In order to recover consequential damages, a pleading party is required to allege that the damages were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made … . “[W]here the damages reflect a loss of profits on collateral business arrangements, they are only recoverable when (1) it is demonstrated with certainty that the damages have been caused by the breach, (2) the extent of the loss is capable of proof with reasonable certainty, and (3) it is established that the damages were fairly within the contemplation of the parties” … .

Here, the defendant’s allegations, even as supplemented by an affidavit from its president, failed to sufficiently allege that consequential damages as lost future profits resulting from the cancellation of the defendant’s contract with the Mexican Navy due to the plaintiff’s breach of contract were within the plaintiff’s contemplation at the time of entering into the contract for the sale of goods (see UCC 2-715[2][a] …). Island Ordnance Sys., LLC v Amerimex, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00897, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: With respect to a contract for the sale of goods controlled by the UCC, a claim for lost profits must specifically allege “lost profits” as an element of consequential damages was contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was entered, not the case here.

 

PLAINTIFF BOOK-PRINTER REPUDIATED ITS BOOK-PRINTING CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT WHEN IT SOLD ITS PRINTING OPERATION TO A THIRD PARTY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined plaintiff (EPAC) had repudiated its book-printing contract with defendant (Wiley) when it sold its printing operation to non-party LS-1. Therefore Wiley was entitled to summary judgment on EPAC’s breach of contract action:

“A repudiation can be either ‘a statement by the obligor to the obligee indicating that the obligor will commit a breach that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach’ or ‘a voluntary affirmative act which renders the obligor unable or apparently unable to perform without such a breach'” … . Put another way, “a party repudiates a contract ‘where that party, before the time of performance arrives, puts it out of his power to keep his contract'” … . “Besides giving the nonrepudiating party an immediate right to sue for damages for total breach, a repudiation discharges the nonrepudiating party’s obligations to render performance in the future” … . Thus, if there were a repudiation, the rest of the case falls away, and Wiley would be entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. EPAC Tech., Inc. v John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00933, First Dept 2-20-24

Practice Point: Here the requirements for “repudiation” of a contract are described in some detail.

 

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