You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a nonsignatory, the plaintiff Rosh, Inc., could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel:

The court should have denied the motion to compel arbitration of Rosh’s claims because Rosh is a nonsignatory to the agreement that contains the arbitration clause and defendants failed to show that the direct benefits theory of estoppel applies …  Under that theory, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it “knowingly exploits the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … .

Here, the arbitration clause was contained in a partnership agreement. However, Rosh was not a party to that agreement nor a partner in the partnership. Rather, Rosh was a ten percent owner in a limited liability company that was the general partner of the partnership. This did not constitute a direct benefit to Rosh from the partnership agreement … .

Moreover, before Rosh could be compelled to arbitrate, it had to invoke or attempt to enforce the terms of the partnership agreement … . To the contrary, all of Rosh’s claims were asserted under the operating agreement of the limited liability company or based on its status as a member of that company. Gilat v Sutton, 2023 NY Slip Op 05363, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was a nonsignatory to the agreement with the arbitration clause. Because plaintiff did not directly benefit from or exploit the agreement, plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel.

 

THE LICENSE ALLOWING THE USE OF A BOAT SLIP AT A COUNTRY CLUB WAS REVOCABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB (THE LICENSOR) (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the license at issue was revocable at will by the licensor:

… [P]laintiff Skaneateles Country Club (SCC) undertook a project to construct 80 boat slips on Skaneateles Lake for the benefit of club members. Interested members, including defendant Olivia Cambs, were required to contribute an initial capitalization payment and enter into an Assignment Agreement. Through the Assignment Agreement, SCC “assign[ed] and transfer[red]” to defendant the “use and occupancy right with respect to one boat slip,” subject to certain express conditions. SCC reserved the right to determine the specific boat slip defendant would occupy, and defendant agreed to comply with all of SCC’s rules and policies, pay an annual maintenance fee, and adhere to any applicable laws, ordinances or governmental regulations. The agreement also permitted defendant to make a “Legacy Transfer” of the slip to her offspring if certain specified conditions were met. Further, the agreement provided that, “[i]n the event [defendant] elect[ed] to terminate this Assignment Agreement” or was no longer a club member, SCC would return the initial capitalization payment.

Following an unrelated dispute with defendant, SCC commenced this declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the agreement was a license terminable at will by SCC. …

… [N]othing in the parties’ agreement limits SCC’s right to terminate or otherwise evinces an intent to alter the general rule that licenses are revocable at will by the licensor … . Although licenses may become irrevocable by the licensor in certain circumstances … , we are not satisfied that any such circumstances are presented here. Skaneateles Country Club v Cambs, 2023 NY Slip Op 05352, CtApp 1-24-23

Practice Point: Although under some circumstances licenses cannot be revoked at will by the licensor, that is not general rule. Here the license allowing use of boat slip at a county club was revocable at will. Nothing in the agreement evinced an intent to alter the general rule.

 

, , , ,

CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent this case back for a determination whether guarantees at issue are constitutional:

In view of the recent decision in Melendez v City of New York (2023 WL 2746183, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 57050 [SD NY, Mar. 31, 2023, No. 20-CV-5301 (RA)] finding the guaranty law unconstitutional, we remand the constitutional question raised by the parties here so the parties can further develop the record in the trial court for the purpose of applying the Contracts Clause test for constitutionality … . Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on nonparty City of New York under CPLR 1012(b)(2) and file proof of service in order for the City to “intervene in support of its constitutionality” … .

Given the vitality of the constitutional question, we also reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for those amounts the court determined were barred by the guaranty law for a determination following the court’s resolution of the constitutional issue. 45-47-49 Eighth Ave. LLC v Conti, 2023 NY Slip Op 05180, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had held plaintiff’s claim to certain amounts was barred by the guaranty law. A federal court has held the guaranty law unconstitutional. This matter was sent back for a determination of the constitutional question.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, VERIZON, THREATENED LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF IF PLAINTIFF RESIGNED TO WORK FOR WARNERMEDIA; PLAINTIFF’S TORTIOUS-INTERFERENCE-WITH-PROSPECTIVE-BUSINESS-RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employer (Verizon) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the tortious-interference-with-prospective-business-relations cause of action. Plaintiff signed a non-compete agreement. When Verizon learned of plaintiff’s plan to resign and work for WarnerMedia Verizon warned plaintiff that resigning would lead to legal action:

Although plaintiff contends that Verizon wrongfully threatened litigation against him to enforce the noncompete provision, the “wrongful means” element of the cause of action is satisfied only where the threatened lawsuit is frivolous … . In light of the above facts, and considering that Verizon has successfully enforced a similar noncompete provision in the past … , there was an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the provision in its agreement with plaintiff was enforceable. …

Furthermore, the record does not support plaintiff’s argument that Verizon took its legal position solely out of a personal dislike for plaintiff, or solely by a desire to harm him … . On the contrary, the record shows that Verizon’s actions were motivated by economic self-interest … . Lucas v Verizon Communications, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05190, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: In order to support a tortious-interference-with-prospective-business-relations cause of action plaintiff must prove the employer’s threatened action was “wrongful” and was motivated solely by a desire to harm plaintiff. Here the employer threatened only to take legal action to enforce a non-compete agreement. The tortious-interference cause of action should have been dismissed.

 

,

THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY OPTED OUT OF THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT REQUIRED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA); THEREFORE THE SUPPORT PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the separation agreement did not include the required language indication the parties agree to opt out of the level of child support required by the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

“Parties to a separation agreement are free to ‘opt out’ of the provisions of the CSSA so long as their decision is made knowingly” … . “To ensure that waivers of the statutory provisions of the CSSA are truly knowingly made, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(h) requires that, in order to be valid, a stipulation must recite that the parties have been made aware of the CSSA, and that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount. Where the stipulation deviates from the basic child support obligation, it must specify what the presumptive amount would have been and the reason for the deviation” … .

Here … the provisions in the parties’ separation agreement relating to the child support obligations with respect to one child did not contain the specific recitals mandated by the CSSA, and the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff’s agreement to said provisions was made knowingly. … [T]he provisions are not enforceable … . Sayles v Sayles, 2023 NY Slip Op 04968, Second Dept 9-4-23

Practice Point: Parties to a separation agreement can “opt out” of the level of child support required by the Child Support Standards Act (CSAA). But if the agreement doesn’t include recitals which make it clear the parties knowingly opted out, the agreement is not enforceable.

 

,

A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS OF THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED A TRIAL TO RESOLVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a conflict between two provisions of the postnuptial agreement which could only be resolved by a trial:

“When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” … . If a contract’s provisions are subject to more than one or conflicting reasonable interpretations, the agreement will be considered ambiguous, requiring a trial on the parties’ intent … . Here, the language of the agreement allows for more than one reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intentions when they entered into the agreement. The language regarding distribution of the parties’ assets is specifically contingent on the occurrence of the operative event otherwise without force or effect. This conflicts with further language that requires the wife to assume certain debt within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. These interrelated provisions are ambiguous as they are “reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, the parties’ intent underpinning these conflicting provisions must be addressed at trial. Bich v Bich, 2023 NY Slip Op 04918. First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Practice: Conflicting provisions in an agreement render the agreement ambiguous requiring a trial.

 

WHERE THERE IS A WRITTEN CONTRACT, AN ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT WILL NOT LIE AGAINST THIRD-PARTY NONSIGNATORIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the existence of a contract precludes an action for unjust enrichment brought against a third-party nonsignatory:

Plaintiff’s cause of action for unjust enrichment is barred by the written agreement between plaintiff and defendant condominium sponsor, despite the fact that appellants are nonsignatories to that agreement … . The case law is clear that even where a defendant is a third-party nonsignatory to a contract, there can be no cause of action sounding in quasi-contract where, as here, there is a valid contract in place and the contract covers the subject matter of the dispute … . Board of Mgrs. of the 15 Union Sq. W. Condominium v Azogui, 2023 NY Slip Op 04920, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: The existence of a written contract precludes an action for unjust enrichment against third-party nonsignatories.

 

, ,

THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH PAY STUBS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR HER RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT INFORMAL TIMESHEETS WERE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PAY STUBS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement in the parties’ stipulation that, in order to receive child support, defendant must demonstrate her employment by furnishing pay stubs was not met by furnishing time sheets:

The parties’ stipulation of August 24, 2021, provides in pertinent part that plaintiff will pay defendant $2,000 per month “as a contribution towards [defendant’s] childcare expenses.” Plaintiff’s obligation to make the payment is conditioned upon defendant being “employed by a nonrelative” and upon her periodic furnishing to plaintiff of “paystub[s]” documenting such employment. The stipulation requires defendant to provide plaintiff with her first paystub from a given employer, the first and last paystub of each calendar year, and the paystub covering July 1 of each year. Defendant moved for an order directing plaintiff to make a childcare payment based on her provision of timesheets purporting to document childcare services that she performed for Matthew Kleban. Kleban is the father of two girls, one of whom is a friend of the parties’ daughter.

… [T]he parties, both represented by counsel, entered into a stipulation that expressly conditioned plaintiff’s obligation to make childcare payments upon defendant’s production of “paystub[s]” to document her employment by a nonrelative. The term “paystub” is defined as “a record that is given to an employee with each paycheck and that shows the amount of money earned and the amount that was removed for taxes, insurance costs, etc.” (https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paystub); accord Black’s Law Dictionary 1364 [11th ed 2019]). Under this definition, and based upon the circumstances herein, the informal timesheets produced by defendant plainly do not qualify as “paystubs.” In holding that plaintiff’s childcare payment obligation was nonetheless triggered under the stipulation because the timesheets were the “functional equivalent” of paystubs, the motion court impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ agreement by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction … . Franklin v Franklin, 2023 NY Slip Op 04925, First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Point: Here the judge’s finding that informal timesheets were the functional equivalent of pay stubs impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ stipulation. The stipulation required plaintiff to prove she was employed as a prerequisite for her receipt of child support.

 

, , ,

THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well land the notice requirements imposed the RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated. Plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [N]either the affidavits nor the business records made the requisite demonstration of mailing as required by the mortgage agreement … . Although one of Serterus’s [the mortgage servicer’s] employees stated that Serterus followed the prior mortgage servicer’s procedures for mailing the default notice, she stated only that she had personal knowledge of Serterus’s recordkeeping practices and procedures, not that she had personal knowledge that the notice of default was actually mailed. Nor did the employee attest to her familiarity with the mailing procedures of either Chase, which the default notice identified as the sender, or its servicer … . Although the employee stated that records of the mailing were attached, the only record of mailing of the notice was the notice itself, which contained no information about whether and when it was mailed. Similarly, the affidavit by the other Serterus employee lacked any indication of how she concluded that the contractual default notice was, in fact, sent. In addition, defendant submitted an affidavit denying ever having received the notice … .

Further, service of the 90-day notice pre-foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304 did not comply with the requirement of service of the default notice required under the mortgage agreement. The mortgage agreement required that the default notice thereunder inform the defendant borrower that if the default was not cured by the date stated in the notice, the lender may require immediate payment in full. However, the RPAPL 1304 notice contains no such statement. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Adago, 2023 NY Slip Op 04717, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Proof of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well as the notice requirements imposed by RPAPL 1304 are prerequisites to foreclosure.

 

, ,

THE STRUCTURED ACQUISITION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the operating agreement was not breached. The facts and issues are too complex to fairly summarize here:

The primary question on this appeal is whether an acquisition of a limited liability company, which transaction was structured as a sale of 100 percent of the membership interests in the target company, may be characterized as a dissolution of the company under the terms of its operating agreement. A former preferred shareholder of the target company, seeking to recover the preferred return to which it would be entitled upon a dissolution, argues that the sale of the company’s equity should qualify as a dissolution under the operating agreement because the transaction necessarily involved the transfer of control of all of the company’s assets and the operating agreement provides that dissolution must occur “upon the disposition by the Company of substantially all of its assets.” We are not persuaded by this argument, and therefore modify the order under review to grant defendants summary judgment dismissing the former preferred shareholder’s cause of action for breach of contract. Southern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04704, First Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: This factually complex opinion in a breach-of-contract action grapples with what constitutes a dissolution of a company under the terms of the operating agreement.

 

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