You are here: / Contract Law
,

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.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract cause of action was sufficiently alleged. Although the complaint did not specifically identify the breached contract, the reference to the relevant provisions of the NYC Administrative Code and the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) permits gave sufficient notice of the nature of the claim:

… [P]laintiffs alleged that Con Edison failed to ensure payment of prevailing wages by codefendant … as required by the permits issued by the City Department of Transportation (DOT), in that it breached agreements required to be made, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-142, prior to obtaining such permits. Administrative Code § 19-142 required Con Edison “to agree that . . . the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles as established by the fiscal officer pursuant to section [220] of the labor law, paid to those so employed,” and provides that “[n]o permit shall be issued until such agreement shall have been entered into with the” DOT. As required by the Administrative Code, the DOT permits issued to Con Edison stated that the permittee was required, “before such permit may be issued, to agree . . . that the prevailing scale of union wages shall be the prevailing wage for similar titles” established pursuant to Labor Law § 220 … …

… [T]he fact that the breach of contract cause of action in the complaint does not specifically identify the relevant contract but instead refers to “the promises required to be made pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 19-142 prior to obtaining such permits,” does not require dismissal. Despite the non-specificity, the complaint “give[s] sufficient notice of the nature of the claim” by referencing Administrative Code § 19-142 and the DOT permits … . Ross v No Parking Today, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00880, First Dept 2-20-24

Practice Point: Here the failure to identify the specific contract which was breached did not require dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action because the nature of the action was sufficiently alleged by reference to the applicable NYC Administrative Code provision and NYC Department of Transportation permits.

 

, ,

FOLLOWING THE RE-ELECTION OF VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT NICOLAS MADURO, THE VENEZUELAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NAMED JUAN GUAIDO INTERIM PRESIDENT AND DECLARED THE EXCHANGE OF UNSECURED FOR SECURED NOTES OFFERED BY THE VENEZUELAN STATE-OWNED OIL COMPANY UNAUTHORIZED; VENEZUELAN LAW CONTROLS THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTES UNDER THE UCC, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, answering questions posed by the Second Circuit, determined the extent to which the exchange of unsecured for secured notes offered to shareholders by the Venezuela’s state-owned oil company was controlled by the New York Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court concluded the validity of the notes under the UCC is governed by Venezuelan law and New York law governs the transaction in all other aspects. The opinion is far too detailed and complex to fairly summarize here. At the heart of the dispute is the 2018 re-election of Nicolas Maduro as President of Venezuela and the declaration by the Venezuelan National Assembly naming Juan Guaido as interim President, followed by the National Assembly’s declaration that the exchange of unsecured for secured notes was unauthorized:

In 2016, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company offered a bond swap through which its noteholders could exchange unsecured notes due in 2017 for new, secured notes due in 2020. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified three questions to this Court concerning the extent to which New York law governs this transaction. … [W]e answer that Venezuelan law governs the validity of the notes under Uniform Commercial Code § 8-110 (a) (1), which encompasses within its scope plaintiffs’ arguments concerning whether the issuance of the notes was duly authorized by the Venezuelan National Assembly under the Venezuelan Constitution—i.e., whether there is a defect in the notes occasioned by the application of a constitutional provision bearing on the procedure through which the notes were issued. … New York law governs the transaction in all other respects, including the consequences if a security was “issued with a defect going to its validity” (UCC 8-202 [b] [1]-[2]). * * *

Plaintiffs are three related entities. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) is an oil and gas company wholly owned by the Venezuelan government (Venezuelan Const art 303 [“the State shall retain all shares of” PDVSA]). PDVSA Petróleo S.A. (Petróleo) is incorporated in Venezuela and is a wholly owned subsidiary of PDVSA. PDV Holding, Inc. (PDVH), also a wholly owned subsidiary of PDVSA, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. PDVH wholly owns CITGO Holding, Inc., which is the sole owner of CITGO Petroleum Corporation, a refiner and marketer of petroleum products in the United States. Nonparties CITGO Holding and CITGO Petroleum Corporation are both incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Houston. Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 00851, CtApp 2-20-24

Practice Point: Nicolas Maduro was re-elected President of Venezuela. Juan Guaido was subsequently named interim President of Venezuela by the Venezuelan National Assembly. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether actions taken by President Maduro (issuance of notes offered by the Venezuelan state-owned oil company) are valid in the face of a subsequent declaration by the Venezuelan National Assembly that the issuance of the notes was not authorized.

 

, , , ,

A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED IN THE UNDERLYING LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE, IS ENTITLED TO BRING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS FOR THE INSURED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined a retrocessional insurer (the reinsurer of a reinsurer) can maintain a legal malpractice claim against lawyers representing the insured in an underlying Labor Law 240(1) (ladder-fall) personal injury action. Plaintiff retrocessional insurer, having paid out on a settlement on behalf of the insured has standing to assert a claim for legal malpractice under a theory of equitable subrogation. (The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here):

In New York, “[w]e recognize at once the fairness of the proposition that an insurer who has been compelled by his contract to pay to or in behalf of the insured claims for damages ought to be reimbursed by the party whose fault has caused such damages and the principle of subrogation ought to be liberally applied for the protection of those who are its natural beneficiaries” … . “As an equitable doctrine in the context of insurance, an insurance carrier, upon payment of a loss becomes subrogated to the rights and remedies of its assured to proceed against a party primarily liable without the necessity of any formal assignment or stipulation” … . Under the same equitable principles, “an insurer which has been compelled under its policy to pay a loss, ought in fairness to be reimbursed by the party which caused the loss” … . * * *

Where a reinsurer, or retrocessionaire, has paid a claim on behalf of an insured, equitable principles demand that the reinsurer be entitled to equitable subrogation on behalf of the insured. Having pleaded that it was contractually obligated to, and did, pay the majority of the [property owner/general contractor’s] settlement amount in the underlying personal injury action, and that it brings the instant action for legal malpractice as subrogee [of the property owner/general contractor], plaintiff can proceed with this action under the theory of equitable subrogation. Century Prop. & Cas. Ins. Corp. v McManus & Richter, 2024 NY Slip Op 00799, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here the retrocessional insurer paid out a settlement on behalf of the insured in an underlying personal injury action. The retrocessional insurer was entitled to bring a legal malpractice action against the lawyers for the insured.

 

, , , ,

PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A DEBT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD MAY REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this suit against his employer seeking payment for work performed raised a question of fact whether the statute of limitations was revived by defendants’ partial payment:

There is a “long-standing common law rule” that partial payment of a debt, if made under “circumstances from which a promise to honor the obligation may be inferred,” will operate to start the statute of limitations running anew from the time the partial payment is made … . To show that the statute of limitations has been renewed by a partial payment, it must be shown that the payment was accompanied by circumstances amounting to “an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that, over a course of years, the defendants made repeated assurances that they would pay him salary and bonus money that he was owed pursuant to his employment arrangement. Further, he alleged that the defendants made a partial payment of outstanding bonus money to the plaintiff on July 17, 2015, within the statute of limitations. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or revived … . Costello v Curan & Ahlers, LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op 00758, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Partial payment of a debt made within the statute of limitations period may revive or toll the statute of limitations for an action based on the debt.

 

,

THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the forum selection clause in the nursing-home admission was valid and enforceable:

“‘A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ … . …

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of the parties’ agreement which includes a forum selection clause, the plaintiff was required to show that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable, unjust, or would contravene public policy, or that the forum selection clause was the result of fraud or overreaching … . Here, the plaintiff failed to do so. Johnson v Seagate Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., 2024 NY Slip Op 00620, Second Dept 2-7-24

Practice Point: To contest a forum selection clause in a nursing home admission agreement, the plaintiff must show that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable, unjust, or would contravene public policy, or that the forum selection clause was the result of fraud or overreaching.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the plaintiff contractor was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license by the New York City Administrative Code. Therefore plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated and quantum meruit causes action against the owner of the property plaintiff worked on was correctly dismissed. The First Department determined the LLC which owned the property was an “owner” within the meaning of the Administrative Code, and the contract was a home improvement contract within the meaning of the meaning of the code:

Obtaining a home improvement contractor’s license is neither a ministerial act nor a mere technicality … . Rather, “strict compliance with the licensing statute [i.e. Administrative Code § 20-387] is required, with the failure to comply barring recovery regardless of whether the work performed was satisfactory, whether the failure to obtain the license was willful or, even, whether the homeowner knew of the lack of a license and planned to take advantage of its absence” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff is a “contractor” for licensing purposes (see Administrative Code § 20-386[5]), and that plaintiff did not have a valid license. The controversy here essentially distills to whether defendant owners are “owners” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 20-387(a), and, if so, whether the agreement between the parties was a “home improvement contract” (Administrative Code § 20-386[6]). If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then plaintiff was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license to recover for the work; if the answer to either question is no, then plaintiff did not need a license. KSP Constr., LLC v LV Prop. Two, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00356, First Dept 1-25-24

Practice Point: A contractor who does renovation work in New York City without a NYC Home Improvement Contractor’s license cannot sue for payment for the work.

 

,

THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS THE “SOLE REMEDY” FOR BREACH; HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE WAIVED THE NONBREACHING PARTY’S RIGHT TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PURSUANT TO CPLR 5001(A) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract language, which provided that liquidated damages constituted the “sole remedy” for breach, did not waive the nonbreaching party’s  right to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a):

At issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ contract language specifying that purchaser’s “sole remedy” in the event of sellers’ breach is the return of its downpayment constitutes a clear waiver of CPLR 5001 (a) as defined by the Court of Appeals in J. D’ Addario & Co., Inc. v Embassy Indus., Inc. (20 NY3d 113 [2012]) and requires denying the nonbreaching party statutory prejudgment interest. … [W]e conclude that it does not and hold that CPLR 5001 (a) requires that plaintiff …, the nonbreaching purchaser, be awarded prejudgment interest on its $626,250.00 downpayment, at the statutory rate of 9% … . IHG Harlem I LLC v 406 Manhattan LLC,2024 NY Slip Op 00164, First Dept 1-16-24

Practice Point: The contract provided that liquidated damages constituted the “sole remedy” for breach. However, nothing in the contract language indicated the nonbreaching party’s right to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) was waived.

 

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