You are here: / Contract Law
, , , ,

THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC; THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION’S VICE PRESIDENT WAS LICENSED AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY, WHICH DID THE ELECTRICAL WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, WAS LICENSED DOESN’T MATTER; THE CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical-contractor corporation could not sue for breach of contract because the corporation was not licensed in NYC to do electrical work, even though plaintiff’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company (QNCC) which did the work as plaintiff corporation’s subcontractor was licensed:

Administrative Code § 27-3017(a) states that it shall be unlawful for any person to, inter alia, perform electrical work in the City of New York unless that person is a licensed master electrician or special electrician. Licensing statutes are to be strictly construed … . …

The plaintiff’s contention that recovery should not be denied because QNCC was a duly licensed subcontractor which performed the electrical work is without merit. This Court has previously held that such a relationship is insufficient to permit an unlicensed contractor to recover for work performed in the City … . “‘So strict has been judicial construction of the statutory requirement through concern for the public health and welfare that the requirement may not be satisfied by employing or subletting’ the work to an appropriately licensed person” … . Moreover, that the plaintiff’s vice president had a master electrician’s license, and that the defendant’s architect knew that the electrical work permits were issued to an entity other than the plaintiff, does not bar the application of the above rule … . Electrical Contr. Solutions Corp. v Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01907, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code requirement that electrical work must be done by licensed entities or persons is strictly construed. Here the electrical-contractor corporation’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company which did the work as a subcontractor was licensed, but the corporation was not. The corporation could not sue for breach of contract.

 

,

HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the “corporation by estoppel” doctrine prevented defendant from arguing the real estate purchase agreement was invalid because the corporate plaintiff (RC) did not exist at the time the contract was executed. RC was eventually formed years later just before this action commenced. The defendant had dealt with RC as an incorporated entity for several years. Therefore defendant was estopped from denying RC’s validity to avoid their obligations under the contract:

Generally, it is true that “‘[s]ince a nonexistent entity cannot acquire rights or assume liabilities, a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract'” … . However, under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, “one who has recognized [an] organization as a corporation in business dealings should not be allowed to quibble or raise immaterial issues which do not concern him or her in the slightest degree or affect his or her substantial rights” …. Thus, “parties who deal with an entity holding itself out as a corporation and who receive performance from such entity are estopped from avoiding their obligations to it” … . Teva Realty, LLC v Cornaga Holding Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01833, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff corporation did not exist when the real estate contract was entered but was formed years later just before the instant litigation was commenced. Defendant dealt with plaintiff as a corporation for years and received a benefit from the contract. The doctrine of “corporation by estoppel” prohibited defendant from arguing the contract was not valid because the corporation was not formed at the time the contract was entered.

 

, , ,

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

 

A 2021 BUYBACK AGEEMENT BETWEEN A NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND A NATURAL GAS SELLER WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF A WINTER STORM WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PRODUCER’S ABILITY TO DELIVER THE USUAL AMOUNT OF GAS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED BASED UPON THE “FORCE MAJEURE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL 2019 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined a buyback agreement between Vaquero, a natural gas producer, and Hartree, a natural gas seller, which was entered in anticipation of an imminent winter storm during which Vaquero would be unable to meet its gas-delivery requirements under the 2019 contract, was valid and enforceable. The buyback contract could not be cancelled by asserting the “force majeure” clause in the original delivery and sales contract entered in 2019:

To the extent that Vaquero argues that its force majeure declaration eliminated its obligations under the buyback, the argument fails. The parties agree that the buyback did not require any physical delivery of gas, and created only a financial obligation. Indeed, Vaquero’s witnesses conceded at their depositions that the February 12, 2021, buyback was a purely financial agreement, with no physical delivery expected from either party. The mere fact that Vaquero had no gas to sell did not relieve it of its financial obligation to Hartree under the February 12, 2021 buyback agreement which did not contain a force majeure provision … . Moreover, the parties are sophisticated entities familiar with the natural gas industry and had a prior history of buyback arrangements. The February 12, 2021, buyback agreement, similar to the parties’ other buyback agreements, created an independent carve out that, because no physical delivery of gas was required, is not affected by the force majeure provisions of the base agreement … . Hartree Partners, LP v Vaquero Permian Processing LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01779, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: Here a 2021 contract entered into in anticipation of the natural gas producer’s inability to deliver the required amount of gas during an imminent winter storm could not be cancelled under the “force majeure” clause in the original 2019 contract between the parties. The 2021 buyback agreement was an independent, enforceable contract which did not include a “force majeure” clause.

 

,

HERE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE WAS DEEMED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELATONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND THE ACTUAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that a liquidated damages clause in a contract will constitute an unenforceable penalty if the amount bears no relation to the actual damage. Here, pursuant to the real estate purchase agreement,  $35,000 was put in escrow pending the resolution of three open building permits. The purchaser demanded the escrow funds because two of the three building permits remained open. The Second Department found there was no relationship between the $35,000 liquidated damages and the actual damage:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the sum deposited into the escrow account had no relationship to the estimated cost of “closing out” the open building permits in relation to the subject improvements to the property. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that at the time that the escrow agreement was entered into, the estimated actual damages were readily ascertainable. Under these circumstances, the purported liquidated damages clause constituted an unenforceable penalty … . Schmuelian v Bichoupan, 2024 NY Slip Op 01738, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the amount has no relationship with the actual damages. In that circumstance the liquidate damages constitute an unenforceable penalty.

 

,

COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT THE REACH OF OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connelly, affirming Supreme Court, discussed in detail the courts’ power to limit the reach of overly broad restrictive covenants in commercial contracts. Here the plaintiff and defendant collaborated for decades in the design and manufacture of fabrics to be used in solar shades. Upon terminating the contractual arrangement, the question became whether the restrictive covenants in the contract are enforceable. Because the opinion addresses the issues in the context of motions to dismiss, most of the findings were preliminary and must await a more complete record. But the Second Department did conclude courts have the power to limit the enforcement of overly broad restrictive covenants in commercial contracts, short of re-writing the contract:

This appeal requires us to analyze the factors to consider when evaluating whether a restrictive covenant in an ordinary commercial contract is enforceable. Although there is a dearth of New York state case law on this issue, we agree with those courts that have analyzed these types of covenants under a rule of reason, considering (1) whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest; (2) the reasonableness of the geographic scope and temporal duration; and (3) the degree of hardship upon the party against whom the covenant is enforced.

This appeal also requires us to consider whether courts have the power to sever and grant partial enforcement of overly broad restrictive covenants in ordinary commercial contracts. Because the Court of Appeals has held that courts have such power with regard to overly broad restrictive covenants in employment agreements (see BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 395), we similarly hold that courts have the power to sever and grant partial enforcement of overly broad restrictive covenants in ordinary commercial contracts and may do so under the appropriate circumstances. Twitchell Tech. Prods., LLC v Mechoshade Sys., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01744, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Courts have to power to limit the reach of overly broad restrictive covenants in commercial contracts, criteria explained in depth.

 

,

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.

 

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