You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

In-Court Stipulation Enforceable Even Though Party Not Represented by Counsel​ 

The Third Department upheld an in-court stipulation concerning a mortgage foreclosure action that was entered without counsel:

Open court stipulations of settlement are highly favored, binding on  the parties and  strictly enforced, and generally will not be  cast aside absent a showing  of “fraud, collusion, mistake or accident” … .The fact that a party was not represented by counsel when entering into a  stipulation, while certainly relevant, is not sufficient  in  itself to  invalidate  a  stipulation,  particularly where the party was advised to retain counsel and chose not to … Liquori v Liquori, 515502, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

, ,

Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable

The Second Department determined the statute of frauds barred the real-property-related action and, since the action was brought “at law,” the equitable “part performance” doctrine could not be applied:

Here, the County established, prima facie, that there is no extant writing subscribed by the County or its agent referencing an alleged oral agreement involving real property, as described by the plaintiff (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[3];…). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Part performance by the party seeking to enforce [a] contract [for the sale of real property] may be sufficient in some circumstances to overcome the statute of frauds, but only in an action for specific performance” (…see General Obligations Law § 5-703[4];…). Since, here, the action is pleaded as one at law, and seeks only money damages, without any specific prayer for equitable relief, the plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of part performance to defeat the statute of frauds defense …. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the statute of frauds. Zito v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 03324, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Anticipatory Repudiation Cause of Action Stated;Four-Year UCC Statute of Limitations Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined that the plaintiff had pled a valid “anticipatory repudiation” cause of action and that the four-year UCC statute of limitations applied.  The case concerned the return (for a refund) of drugs when the expiration date is close or has passed.  The plaintiff brought the action when it learned the refund would not be offered in full. Regarding the anticipatory repudiation and statute of limitations issues, Justice Leventhal wrote:

Here, the complaint alleges that, when the defendants refused to accept the plaintiff’s attempt to return the unsold merchandise, the defendants anticipatorily repudiated their respective return policies by unambiguously stating that they would not accept the returns. The complaint asserts that the defendants’ anticipatory repudiation occurred before the plaintiff tendered the unsold merchandise to the defendants and before the plaintiff attempted to return the merchandise to the manufacturer in accordance with standard industry practice. When a party repudiates a contract prior to the time designated for performance and before all of the consideration has been fulfilled, the nonrepudiating party can seek to recover damages …. * * *

The general rule applicable to actions to recover damages for breach of contract is that a six-year statute of limitations begins to run when a contract is breached or when one party fails to perform a contractual obligation …. However, UCC 2-725(1) provides that “[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale [of goods] must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued” (see CPLR 203[a]). QK Healthcare, Inc v InSource, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03312, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Meruit

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a contractor’s “breach-of-contract” and “quantum-meruit” causes of action because the contractor was not licensed, and thereby forfeited his right to recover:

Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis …. Administrative Code of Suffolk County § 563-17(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]t is unlawful for any person to engage in any business as a home improvement contractor without obtaining a license therefor.” Graciano Corp v Baronoff, 2013 NY Slip Op 03301, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

, , ,

Broad Arbitration Clause Required Arbitration of Topic Not Directly Covered by Collective Bargaining Agreement

In upholding the lower court’s determination that a matter involving “shift swapping” in the sheriff’s department was subject to arbitration even though the topic was not directly covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Fourth Department wrote:

In determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue, “[o]ur review . . . is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom” …. “Where, as here, there is a broad arbitration clause and a ‘reasonable relationship’ between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ [CBA], the court ‘should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them’ ” … .  Matter of Ontario County…, CA 12-01766, 309, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement Explained

The Fourth Department noted the criteria for a defendant’s right to specific performance of a plea agreement (criteria not met in this case):
“ ‘The remedy of specific performance in the context of plea agreements applies where a defendant has been placed in a no-return position in reliance on the plea agreement . . . , such that specific performance is warranted as a matter of essential fairness’ ” … Inasmuch as neither the prosecution nor the defense had taken any action on the second plea agreement …defendant was not placed in a “ ‘no-return position’ ” in reliance on the second plea agreement and is thus not entitled to specific performance of that agreement… . People v Weather, KA 11-01247, 482, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Limitation of Liability Clause in House-Design Contract Valid

he defendant designed plaintiffs’ residence and the first floor was built two feet below what the regulations required resulting in increased flood insurance premiums.  In the contract between the parties, it was agreed to limit defendant’s liability to the amount of the fees paid by plaintiffs.  After noting that contractual liability-limit clauses are valid and enforced except in cases of “gross negligence,” the Third Department determined “gross negligence” had not been demonstrated:  In describing “gross negligence,” the Third Department wrote:

In this context, it is settled  that  “gross negligence differs in kind, not only in degree, from claims of ordinary negligence.  It is conduct  that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing” … .  Soja v Keystone Tozze, LLC, 515422, 3rd Dept 5-2-13

 

, , ,

The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​

The Third Department determined there were two equally plausible interpretations of the term “sellers” as used in the contract, rendering the contract ambiguous.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint prior to discovery was properly denied. In addition, the Third Department determined that the term “release” (re: hazardous substances) did not extend to the migration of hazardous substances to neighboring properties under ground:

…[The provision] requires  indemnification  for environmental  claims  related  to, among other things, a “Release” of hazardous substances “at locations other than [500 Beech].” “Release”  is defined  to include  “any  spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring,  emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, dumping  or disposing of any Hazardous  Material  into  the  environment.” In its Canadian action, the neighbor alleged that contaminants – which would be classified as “Hazardous Materials” under the agreement – in the ground  at 500 Beech migrated into the soil and  groundwater at 606 Beech. There is no allegation that hazardous substances were spilled, leaked or otherwise disposed of directly onto the property at 606 Beech. Rather, the allegation is that the flow of underground water carried those substances from 500 Beech, where they had been spilled or leaked, to the neighboring property. Although the hazardous substances eventually wound up at 606 Beech, there is no support for an allegation that the “Release” of those substances occurred at a location other than 500 Beech. Vectron International, Inc, v Corning Oak Holding, Inc, 515408, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Contract-Based Duty Owed to Non-Party Explained

In this case a stove that was not secured to the wall with a bracket tipped over as children either stood or jumped on the oven door. One of the children was killed.  One of the many issues in the case was whether the contractor who installed the stove without the bracket was liable to the surviving child.  In upholding the denial of the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, the Third Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to tort liability to a third party:

Defendant contends that, since he performed work as a contractor for the rental agent, he owed no duty to the surviving child and, thus, his motion for summary judgment in this regard should have been granted. “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” …. The  three limited exceptions to this general rule include: “(1) where  the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance  of his [or her] duties, launches 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” …. Care must be taken in the application of the exceptions so that they do not “swallow up the general rule” …, and determining whether a duty exists is “a question of law for the courts” ….  Kelley…v Schneck…, 515645, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

ESPINAL

,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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