You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the breach of contract (commercial lease) cause of action against defendant limited liability companies which had purchased the assets of the original lessee (another limited liability company) should not have been dismissed. The majority concluded the complaint stated a cause of action under the theory that defendants constituted a “mere continuation” of the original lessee. The dissent argued the “mere continuation” theory does not apply where, as here, there are two purchasers of the original lessee’s assets:

… [W]e find that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract against [defendants] based on the “mere continuation” exception to the rule against successor liability. “Although no one factor is dispositive,” courts determining whether a successor corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business … . * * *

Neither the motion court nor defendants cite to any authority prohibiting application of mere continuation successor liability where more than one company has acquired the assets of the predecessor. We disagree with the dissent to the extent that it asserts that Schumacher (59 NY2d 239) stands for the proposition that the existence of more than one successor corporation necessarily bars application of the mere continuation doctrine. In Schumacher, there was only one successor … . Accordingly, it does not address the situation in the facts pleaded by plaintiff in this case. Avamer 57 Fee LLC v Hunter Boot USA LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04607, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: The purchasers of a business which constitute a “mere continuation” of the seller’s business can be liable under a contract originally entered by the seller.

 

, ,

HERE THE “SOPHISTICATED PARTIES” TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE PROPERLY USED INSURANCE TO ALLOCATE THE RISK OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES; THEREFORE THE TENANT CAN BE LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER’S NEGLIGENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant (Beachbum Tanning) was obligated to indemnify the property owner (RJJR Corp) for the property owner’s negligence in this sidewalk (raised flag) slip and fall case. The “sophisticated parties” to the commercial lease had properly allocated the risk of liability to third parties through insurance:

“Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321, a lease that obligates a tenant to indemnify a landlord for the landlord’s own negligence is against public policy and unenforceable. However, in the context of a commercial lease, negotiated between two sophisticated parties, where a ‘lessor and lessee freely enter into an indemnification agreement whereby they use insurance to allocate the risk of liability to third parties between themselves, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not prohibit indemnity'” … . Under such circumstances the landlord “‘is not exempting itself from liability to the victim for its own negligence. Rather, the parties are allocating the risk of liability to third parties between themselves, essentially through the employment of insurance. Courts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public'” … . Arnold v RJJR Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Sophisticated parties to a commercial lease can use insurance to allocate liability to third parties. Thereforethe tenant can be liable for the property owner’s negligence in this sidewalk slip and fall case.

 

,

THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the exclusionary provisions of the fire insurance policy were ambiguous and therefore must be construed in favor of the insured. At the time of the fire unauthorized occupants were living in the building and the insurer disclaimed coverage on that ground:

Here, the disputed exclusionary provisions read as follows:

“C. We do not cover loss resulting directly or indirectly:

Vacancy or Occupancy

1. While a described building, whether intended for occupancy . . . is vacant or unoccupied beyond a period of sixty (60) consecutive days.

Increase in Hazard

2. While the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured.”

​Construed in the context of the contract as a whole, the plain and ordinary meaning of these exclusionary provisions is not apparent. The exclusionary provisions at issue are listed in the supplemental special provisions that modified the original dwelling insurance policy. The contract provides for certain general exclusions in parts A and B, and thereafter included the above referenced supplemental general exclusions as part C. Part A provides that, “[w]e do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following” … , and lists conditions or events that could damage the insured premises, including, for example, earth movement, water damage, and power failure. Part C, as referenced above, does not contain any language after “directly or indirectly.” Thus, it is not clear whether the “vacancy or occupancy” or “increase in hazard” must cause the loss or whether the condition must simply exist at the time of the loss. Because the exclusionary provisions are ambiguous, and any ambiguity is construed against the insurer in favor of the insured, the plaintiff has established her prima facie entitlement to coverage … . Eubanks v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 2025 NY Slip Op 04460, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: At the time of the fire the building was inhabited by “unauthorized occupants” and coverage was disclaimed. However, the exclusionary provisions of the policy were ambiguous. The ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured. Therefore the disclaimer constituted a breach of contract.

 

,

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the contract between plaintiff and defendants was a revenue purchase agreement, not a loan. Therefore defendants’ argument the agreement constituted a usurious loan was rejected. However, questions of fact about the extent of the damages precluded summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The concurring justices agreed the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but argued the analysis of the issue used by the majority, based upon a specific case, was wrong and suggested a different approach:

Under the agreement, plaintiff advanced a monetary amount to the entity defendants in exchange for 25% of the future revenues of their business, until the purchased amount, i.e., an agreed-upon amount that was greater than the advanced amount, was paid to plaintiff. There was no interest rate or payment schedule and no time period during which the purchased amount was to be collected by plaintiff. Indeed, the agreement specifically stated that it was not a loan and that the entity defendants were “not borrowing money from” plaintiff. The agreement contained a daily remittance amount, which constituted “a good faith estimate of” plaintiff’s share of the future revenue stream. The agreement also contained an acknowledgment from plaintiff that it was “entering this [a]greement knowing the risks that [the entity defendants’] business may slow down or fail, [that plaintiff] assumes these risks,” and that there would be no recourse for plaintiff in the event the entity defendants went bankrupt, went out of business, or experienced a slowdown in business, among other things. The agreement also contained two reconciliation provisions, whereby the daily remittance would be modified both retroactively and prospectively upon request and with proof of earned revenue amounts. * * *

In determining whether a transaction constitutes a loan, courts must determine whether the plaintiff ” ‘is absolutely entitled to repayment under all circumstances’ “; “[u]nless a principal sum advanced is repayable absolutely, the transaction is not a loan” … . “Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy” (… see Samson MCA LLC, 219 AD3d at 1128 …). Bridge Funding Cap LLC v SimonExpress Pizza, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04306, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the nature of a revenue purchase agreement, as opposed to a loan. The majority used a Second Department case to structure its analysis. The two-justice concurrence agreed with the majority that the contract was a revenue purchase agreement, but suggested a different approach to the analysis.​

 

, ,

THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE A LOAN ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION ON A LOAN PROCURED BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S ASSISTANCE; “EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO …” CRITERIA IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined the brokerage agreement did not give plaintiff the right to a commission when the defendant procured financing on its own:

This appeal presents the opportunity to examine the law of brokerage agreements granting an “exclusive right to sell,” as well as the application of such agreements outside the context of transactions involving the sale or lease of real property. In the present case, the plaintiff broker contends that it had an exclusive agreement to secure certain financing on behalf of the defendant and that it was entitled to a commission even though it was not the procuring cause of a loan the defendant ultimately obtained. * * *

The agreement did not clearly and expressly provide the plaintiff with the exclusive right to deal or negotiate on the defendant’s behalf … . The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the loan … . Angelic Real Estate, LLC v Aurora Props., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04223, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the contractual terms necessary to confer on a broker an exclusive right to procure a loan, such that a commission is owed even when the loan is procured without the broker’s assistance (not the case here).

 

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, WHICH ALLOWED REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE AFTER A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY WAS REJECTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award in this employment-discipline case should not have been vacated. The court rejected the argument that the award, which penalized the employee (Williams) for misbehavior as a corrections officer but allowed her reinstatement, violated public policy. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here. But it illustrates just how difficult it is to vacate an arbitrator’s award on public-policy grounds:

“A court may vacate an arbitrator’s award only on grounds stated in CPLR 7511 (b)” … . Among other circumstances, vacatur is permitted where an arbitrator directs an award that “violates a strong public policy” … . An arbitration award may only be vacated on public policy grounds “where a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis [(1)] that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [(2)] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State” … . As there is no contention that the law prohibited the arbitrator from deciding Williams’ guilt and penalty under the CBA, [collective bargaining agreement] our inquiry focuses on whether “the final result creates an explicit conflict with other laws and their attendant policy concerns” … . Matter of Spence (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2025 NY Slip Op 04135, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for vacating an arbitrator’s award on public policy grounds.

 

, , ,

A COURT’S POWER TO VACATE AN ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IS EXTREMELY LIMITED; AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNLESS IT IS “COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL;” HERE THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD UPHOLDING THE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER-DENTAL-HYGIENIST FOR HER FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COVID-19 VACCINE WAS CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award in this COVID-19 vaccine-mandate case should not have been vacated. The arbitrator found that the petitioner-employee, a dental hygienist, was properly suspended without pay and issued a Notice of Discipline for failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. A court’s power to vacate an arbitration award is extremely limited:

We agree with respondent that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioner[] failed to meet [her] heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondent that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, there is no dispute that respondent directed petitioner to fully receive the COVID-19 vaccine by a specific date, that it apprised her that her continued employment was contingent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date. It is also undisputed that petitioner was never granted a reasonable accommodation that excused her compliance with the vaccine mandate. Consequently, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . To the extent petitioner argues that the arbitrator erred in not considering the propriety of respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for a reasonable accommodation based on a pre-existing health condition, we note that the arbitrator interpreted the CBA as precluding any review of that decision. Inasmuch as we conclude that “the arbitrator’s ‘interpretation of the [CBA] [is] not . . . completely irrational, [it] is beyond [our] review power’ ” … . Finally, we note that the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Davis (State of New York Off. of Mental Health), 2025 NY Slip Op 03910, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Consult thee decisions for an explanation of the limits on a court’s review of an arbitration award.

 

, , , ,

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIES TO DEFAMATION ACTIONS WAS NOT APPLICABLE HERE IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY THREATENED TO PROVIDE DAMAGING TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER ACTION INVOLVING PLAINTIFFS, IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARTY, IF DEFENDANT’S DEMANDS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to immunity in this breach of contract action alleging breach of confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions. The immunity and privilege which applies to statements made in defamation litigation does not apply in breach of contract litigation:

Plaintiffs allege that defendant breached the confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions of their agreement when he threatened to provide damaging testimony in a separate action between plaintiffs and Reebok (a litigation to which defendant was not a party) if his demands in an unrelated arbitration with plaintiffs were not accepted. Plaintiffs further allege that when his demands were rejected, defendant acted on his threats, contacted Reebok, and offered to provide damaging false testimony in that action.

Defendant … argues … that the Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Gottwald v Sebert (40 NY3d 240 [2023]) bars plaintiffs’ action. In Gottwald, the court held that there is no “sham exception” to the litigation privilege in a defamation action, thus conferring absolute litigation privilege no matter the motivation for the suit … . The motion court agreed that Gottwald barred plaintiff’s action and granted defendant summary judgment on that basis.

Gottwald specifically holds that “absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for . . . statements made . . . in connection with a proceeding before a court when such words and writings are material and pertinent to the questions involved” … . However, here, plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is for breach of contract, not defamation, and thus, Gottwald is not applicable. Moreover, the absolute litigation privilege granted by the Gottwald court was conferred upon parties to the suit. Gottwald does not speak to whether that privilege extends to individuals ancillary or collateral to the litigation, such as a potential witness.  TRB Acquisitions LLC v Yedid, 2025 NY Slip Op 03872, First Dept 6-26-25

Practice Point: The litigation privilege which applies in defamation actions was not applicable here in this breach of contract action where defendant threatened to give damaging testimony in another action involving plaintiffs in which defendant was not a party.

 

, , ,

THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY RETIRED NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES TO PROVE THE CITY PROMISED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR LIFE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS PROMISE; THEREFORE THE RETIREES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the petitioners were not entitled to judgment on the promissory estoppel cause of action. Petitioners are retired New York City employees who argued the city had promised to provide them with Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life. In 2021 the city made significant changes to its health benefits program, discontinuing its most popular program, Senior Care, and most other options, and enrolling retirees in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) managed by Aetna Life Insurance Company:

To support the allegation of a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life, petitioners submitted copies of Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) that the City provides its employees and retirees on an annual basis to inform them of their health insurance options. * * *

The SPDs themselves contain nothing that could be construed as a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life. To the contrary, we agree with the City that the language in the SPDs is descriptive and for informational purposes only. The language on which petitioners rely—”becomes eligible,” “is provided,” “provides,” and “supplements”—is in the present tense. The descriptive nature of the SPD is reflected in the title of the document—Summary Program Description—and its informational nature is also clear from the context of the SPD, the purpose of which is to explain benefits for the upcoming year. Indeed, annual SPDs are necessary only because benefits change from year to year, a fact petitioners do not contest. Petitioners rely heavily on the phrase “and thereafter” in the SPDs as conclusive evidence of a continuing promise, but read in context this language is used only to explain when someone is eligible for Medicare and not in reference to any promise of future benefits. To the extent that one might infer a commitment of sorts from the SPDs’ language, it does not rise to the level of a clear and unambiguous promise that the City would pay for Medigap coverage, as opposed to some other form of health insurance coverage, for the rest of every retiree’s life. Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03690, CtApp 6-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the proof requirements for a “clear and unambiguous promise,” in the context of promissory estoppel.

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, who are the parents of plaintiffs’ decedent and the administrators of decedent’s estate, are not bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The decedent rented an electric moped from defendant Ravel by downloading an app with an arbitration clause. Decedent was killed when he was thrown from the moped and struck by a car. All agreed that the negligence causes of action were subject to the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs successfully argued the wrongful death action is distinct from the negligence actions and is not subject to the arbitration clause. The winning argument was first raised on appeal. The court heard the appeal because it “present[ed] a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” …:

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs, individually, did not enter into an agreement with Revel to arbitrate. However, the plaintiffs are the administrators of the decedent’s estate, and the causes of action arise from the same incident that caused the decedent’s death. The issue, therefore, turns on the nature of wrongful death causes of action and whether they are derivative of negligence causes of action or independent of negligence causes of action. * * *

The law of this State is clear that a wrongful death cause of action is a separate and distinct cause of action to redress the injuries suffered by a decedent’s distributees as a result of the decedent’s death. “‘A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death'” … . This is true even where no cause of action alleging negligence exists. * * * … [T]his Court [has] determined that a cause of action alleging wrongful death was not derivative of a negligence cause of action, but [is] an independent cause of action vested in the distributees. “… [T]he surviving personal injury action and the wrongful death cause of action … are different in many respects. The two causes of action exist in order to protect the rights of different classes of persons, and the measure of damages is entirely different” … . “Wrongful death actions are brought not to compensate the decedent or his [or her] estate for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury, but rather to recover, on behalf of decedent’s distributees, the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life” … . Further, the different causes of action accrue at different times. A negligence cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, while a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue until the decedent’s death, which can occur after the injury is sustained … . Marinos v Brahaj, 2025 NY Slip Op 03561, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Negligence and wrongful death causes of action are distinct and address different injuries. Here an arbitration clause in a moped rental contract executed to by plaintiffs’ decedent was deemed to apply to the negligence causes of action stemming from the moped accident, but not to the related wrongful death cause of action.​

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an example of when an issue raised for the first time on appeal will be considered by the appellate court.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy