You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

THE DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT MIGHT WIN AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMSSAL ARE DIFFERENT AND WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant contractor’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him individually should not have been granted. Defendant, Gabbay, executed the subject home renovation contract on behalf of “Dansha Corp.,” an entity which does not exist. Defendant asserted in an affidavit submitted to support the motion to dismiss, that “Dansh Corp.” is a trade name for “Dansha Realty Corp.,” which does exist. Therefore, defendant argued, he can not be individually liable on the contract. However, irrespective of what might be determined in a motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss which relies on evidence must be supported by “documentary evidence.” Defendant’s affidavit does not constitute “documentary evidence:”

Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and such proof is considered but the motion has not been converted to one for summary judgment, ‘the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [the proponent] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it[,] . . . dismissal should not eventuate'” … . “‘Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss'” … . “A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law” … . …

Although there is “no individual liability for principals of a corporation for actions taken in furtherance of the corporation’s business” … , “‘a person entering into a contract on behalf of a nonexistent corporate entity may be held personally liable on the contract'” … . Here, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint states causes of action against Gabbay to recover damages for breach of contract … and money had and received … . There is no dispute that “Dansha Corp.,” the entity named as the general contractor in the contract, does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by Gabbay failed to conclusively establish that “Dansha Realty Corp.” was the intended party to the contract for purposes of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss … . The affidavit submitted by Gabbay in support of the motion was not “documentary” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the remainder of the evidence, including invoices sent to the plaintiff from “Dansha Corp.,” do not prove that “Dansha Corp.” is a trade name for “Dansha Realty Corp.” … . Churong Liu v Gabbay, 2023 NY Slip Op 04108, Second Dept 8-2-23

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the different proof requirements for a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence and a motion for summary judgment. Irrespective of whether a party may win a summary judgment motion, a motion to dismiss supported by an affidavit which is not “documentary evidence” will not win.

 

, ,

THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (A LIP OR HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THE ROAD SURFACE) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEGATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT CONTRACTORS ARE GENERALLY NOT LIABLE TO THIRD PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant paving company (DeBartolo) failed to eliminate a question of fact about whether it created the dangerous condition (i.e., launched the instrument of harm) which is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The complaint alleged DeBartolo paved over existing pavement, created the height-differential over which plaintiff tripped. Although a contractor like DeBartolo ordinarily does not owe a duty of care to a third party who is not a party to the contract, the so-called Espinal exceptions apply when a contractor is alleged to have “launched an instrument of harm.” Once that theory of liability is alleged, the contractor seeking summary judgment must present evidence negating the allegation which DeBartolo failed to do:

… [T]he plaintiffs pleaded in their amended complaint and bill of particulars that DeBartolo Landscaping created the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall as a result of, among other things, failing to properly repave the area. Therefore, DeBartolo Landscaping, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, had to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 140 …). * * * … [The] evidence reveals … that DeBartolo Landscaping resurfaced Shady Glen Court in the area of the crosswalk prior to the subject accident, and that the resurfacing, which involved the application of new asphalt on top of the existing pavement, immediately resulted in a lip or elevation differential at the seam between the existing pavement and new asphalt. Thus, this evidence failed to demonstrate that Debartolo Landscaping did not create the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall … . Camelio v Shady Glen Owners’ Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04105, Second Dept 8-2-23

Practice Point: Generally contractors are not liable to persons who are not parties to the contract. However, under the Espinal case, contractors can be liable to third persons if they “launch an instrument of harm.” If, as here, the plaintiff alleges the contractor launched an instrument of harm, the contractor must negate that allegation to be entitled to summary judgment. Here the proof did not negate the applicability of the Espinal exception.

 

,

UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the provisions of a stipulated order in a divorce proceeding (section 6.3)  providing that plaintiff would pay for medical insurance for a child (T.D.) for as long as coverage was available under the employer’s family plan were unambiguous and must be enforced. Because the “Age 29” law allowed the child to remain covered by plaintiff’s employer’s plan until age 29. plaintiff was obligated to pay for that coverage. The argument that the provision was ambiguous allowing extrinsic evidence that the parties contemplated only the Affordable Care Act’s cut-off at age 26 was rejected: The “Age 29” act was passed before the issuance of the stipulated order:

… [T]he practical and reasonable interpretation of § 6.3 is that, to the extent plaintiff can maintain health insurance for T.D. through his employer, he is required to do so as long as any relevant law permits coverage for T.D. As he acknowledges in his brief (and as the evidence he submitted in opposition to the motion establishes), T.D. has coverage under the same health insurance plan provided by plaintiff’s employer to its employees. Thus, by virtue of the fact that plaintiff has health insurance through his employer, Age 29 Law coverage is available to T.D. B.D. v E.D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03971, First Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Here the stipulated order entered in the divorce proceedings required plaintiff to provide medical insurance to the child as long as the child could be covered by law under the employer’s plan. The Age 29 Law allowed coverage until age 29. The argument that the stipulated order was ambiguous allowing extrinsic proof that the parties contemplated only the age 26 cut-off under the Affordable Care Act was rejected.

 

,

​THE BUYER WAS NOTIFED TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS REAL ESTATE DEAL AND WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO CLOSE; THEREFORE THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the buyer in this real-estate deal could not demand specific performance because he was notified time was of the essence and was provided with a reasonable time within which to close. The sellers were entitled to keep the down payment as liquidated damages:

… [T]he buyer does not have a cause of action for specific performance. Although time was not made of the essence in the contract, the defendants subsequently provided valid notice that time was of the essence insofar as the notice: (1) gave clear, distinct, and unequivocal notice that time was of the essence, (2) gave the buyer a reasonable time in which to act, and (3) informed the buyer that if he did not perform by the designated date, he would be considered in default … . “What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case” … . Although the determination of reasonableness is usually a question of fact, it may become a question of law where, as here, there is no dispute as to the facts … . Contrary to the buyer’s contention, he had a reasonable amount of time to perform, where, among other things, he had approximately 62 days to close from the initial closing date. Because he failed to close after the notice to cure was sent, the defendants were entitled, pursuant to the contract, to terminate the contract and retain the down payment as liquidated damages … . Further, the parties’ submissions clearly demonstrate that the buyer did not substantially perform his contractual obligations, and was not ready, willing, and able to perform his remaining obligations. His allegations that he remained ready, willing, and able to close and had fulfilled all of his obligations under the contract are bare legal conclusions, which are not presumed to be true … . Herman v 818 Woodward, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03912, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: Here the buyer in this real estate deal was notified that time was of the essence and was given a reasonable time during which to close. The buyer, therefore, was not entitled to specific performance and the sellers were entitled to the down payment as liquidated damages.

 

, , ,

A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE TITLE (HERE SUSPICION A DEED WAS FORGED); CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) IS NOT STRICTLY APPLIED TO A JUDICIAL SALE AT AUCTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and setting aside the judicial foreclosure sale, determined the possibility a deed was forged cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale. The court noted that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale:

“‘[A] purchaser at a judicial sale should not be compelled by the courts to accept a doubtful title,’ and, ‘if it was bad or doubtful, he [or she] should, on his [or her] application, be relieved from completing the purchase'” … .

Moreover, “[t]he rule that a buyer must protect himself [or herself] against undisclosed defects does not apply in all strictness to a purchaser at a judicial sale” … . “[A] sale of land in the haste and confusion of an auction room is not governed by the strict rules applicable to formal contracts made with deliberation after ample opportunity to investigate and inquire” … .Golden Bridge, LLC v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03854, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: Here the purchase of property at a foreclosure judicial sale was set aside because of suspicion a deed was forged. The doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the City was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law case. Plaintiff was working for a subsidiary of Verizon (Empire City) laying a conduit in a trench in the street when a backhoe pushed a metal plate onto his foot. The City argued it was not an owner under the Labor Law, had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and there was no nexus between the City and and the work performed by Verizon. The majority held there were questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon, and whether a permit for the work had been issued by the City. Although the “lack of a nexus” argument was raised for the first time in reply, the majority held the issue raised a question of law and was properly considered by the motion court:

The witness’s lack of knowledge renders his testimony inconclusive and speculative as to whether Empire City was working without a permit on the day plaintiff was injured, warranting denial of summary judgment … . * * *

… [T]here remain triable issues of fact as to whether there existed a nexus between plaintiff and the City … . Furthermore, plaintiff sought certified copies of the franchise agreements for both Verizon and Empire City as part of discovery and defendant failed to provide them. Thus, the City’s challenge to the franchise documentation as being unauthenticated should have been rejected by the court, as copies of the documents remained in defendant’s exclusive possession and control but were not provided to plaintiff …  Powell v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03843, First Dept 7-17-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff was employed by a subsidiary of Verizon and was injured laying a conduit in a trench under a City street. The City claimed it had no nexus to the work done by Verizon. The majority held questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon and the issuance of a permit by the City precluded summary judgment in favor of the City. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the existence of a contract covering the relevant issue precluded the unjust enrichment cause of action, even though defendants were not signatories to the contract:

“The existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … . It makes no difference that defendants are not parties to the contracts governing the dispute, as “a nonsignatory to a contract cannot be held liable where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter” … . * * *

… “[U]njust enrichment is not a catchall cause of action . . . . It is available only in unusual situations when, though the defendant has not breached a contract nor committed a recognized tort, circumstances create an equitable obligation running from the defendant to the plaintiff” … . Here, plaintiff states a claim against defendants for recognized torts, obviating the need for the creation of that obligation. Iberdrola Energy Projects v MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03841, First Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If a contract covers the relevant issue, unjust enrichment is not available, even if the defendants are nonsignatories. Unjust enrichment is not a “catch all” cause of action and is appropriate only when there is no actionable breach of contract and the relevant issue is not otherwise addressed by other causes of action (here certain torts).

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the six-year statute of limitations for the original foreclosure action had run, the loan modification agreement, which was entered after the foreclosure action was started and while it was still pending, restarted the statute of limitations:

RPAPL 1501(4) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]here the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage . . . has expired, any person having an estate or interest in the real property subject to such encumbrance may maintain an action . . . to secure the cancellation and discharge of record of such encumbrance.” Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-105, however, “a promise to pay the mortgage debt, if made after the accrual of a right of action to foreclose the mortgage . . . by the express terms of a writing signed by the party to be charged is effective . . . to make the time limited for commencement of the action run from the date of the . . . promise”… .  14 Fillm Corp. v Mid-Island Mtge. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03759, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Even if a foreclosure had been filed, starting the running of the statute of limitations, a loan modification agreement entered while the the foreclosure action was pending starts the running of the statute of limitations all over again.

 

,

THE DATE BY WHICH AN OPTION TO RENEW A LEASE IS TO BE EXERCISED CAN BE WAIVED BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNTIMELY ELECTION TO RENEW; THE REQUEST FOR A NEW LEASE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL TERMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION TO RENEW (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant tenant had exercised its option to renew the lease. The court noted that the date by which an option to renew must be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the landlord:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that, to the extent that Supreme Court concluded that defendant could not have exercised the option to renew because the option lapsed after November 30, 2018, that finding was erroneous. Although an “optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option” … , the relevant case law establishes that the notice provision associated with the option was “solely for plaintiff’s benefit as the landlord and may be waived, even in the absence of a written waiver” … . Here, plaintiff’s assertion that he confirmed and accepted defendant’s untimely election constitutes such waiver.

… [W]here an option is exercised and all of the essential and material terms of the parties’ agreement are provided for in the original lease, the fact that a party contemplates “the subsequent execution of a more formal writing [that was] not done will not impair [the] effectiveness” of the election … . Nor would plaintiff’s inquiry as to whether defendant would like a future option to renew render defendant’s exercise of the option conditional … .

The core question is whether defendant exercised its option to renew, as a matter of law. Moore v Schuler-Haas Elec. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03739, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: The date by which an option to renew a leased is to be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the acceptance of an untimely election. The request for a new lease with the same material terms does not invalidate the election to renew.

 

, , , , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in a real estate deal should not have been dismissed because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint. After the real estate purchase offer was signed by both parties and the down payment was made, defendant’s attorney returned the down payment check with a letter saying that the defendant was no longer interested in selling to the plaintiff:

Here, neither the affidavits submitted in support of the defendant’s motion nor the purported contract between the defendant and another purchaser constituted documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the defendant’s evidentiary submissions were “insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-107(5). Jeffrey v Collins, 2023 NY Slip Op 03686, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: The affidavits and real estate contract submitted in support of the motion to dismiss did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint and therefore did not support dismissal of the complaint based on documentary evidence.

 

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