Contract Law – Page 21 – New York Appellate Digest

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fraud, Limited Liability Company Law

THE CRITERIA FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION BASED UPON A TORT COMMITTED “WITHIN THE STATE” CLARIFIED; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE OUT-OF-STATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF AN LLC WHICH SOLD N95 MASKS TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THE QUALITY OF THE MASKS WAS MISREPRESENTED IN AN EMAIL TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, determined New York did not have long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state individual defendants based upon an alleged misrepresentation in an email sent by defendants as principals of defendant LLC (RPP) to the New York plaintiff. RPP sold N95 masks to plaintiff. A picture of a mask sent in the email had the FDA-approval logo on the packaging. Plaintiff alleged the masks actually shipped were not FDA approved:

This appeal presents the opportunity to reaffirm this Court’s position on what constitutes a tort committed within the boundaries of this state for purposes of New York’s long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2). … [W]e find that the language “within the state” in CPLR 302(a)(2), means that a nondomiciliary is only subject to New York’s long-arm jurisdiction under subsection (a)(2) when they have committed a tortious act, in person or through an agent, while physically present within the boundaries of this state. * * *

… [I]t is undisputed that the alleged fraudulent statements were made outside of New York and that the individual defendants communicated with plaintiff solely in their capacity as principals of RPP. Therefore, we find that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis for imposing long-arm jurisdiction over the individual defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(2), and the motion court should have granted the individual defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) and dismissed the cause of action as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). In light of our determination, we need not reach the issue of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process or whether a discretionary vacatur was warranted as it relates to the individual defendants. SOS Capital v Recycling Paper Partners of PA, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04480, First Dept 8-31-23

Practice Point: Here the criteria for long-arm jurisdiction based upon a tort committed in New York were clarified by the First Department.

August 31, 2023

Contract Law, Real Estate

ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS REVOKED AFTER THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD HAD ELAPSED, THE SELLER’S BAD FAITH WARRANTED RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff purchaser was entitled to return of the down payment after the bank refused to extend the mortgage commitment because the seller had not submitted an environmental report. Although the original mortgage-contingency clause was no longer operable (because the loan commitment had been extended pending receipt of the environmental report), it was the seller’s failure to provide the report, and not the actions or omissions of the purchaser, which resulted in the termination of the loan commitment:

“A mortgage contingency clause is construed to create a condition precedent to the contract of sale” … . “The purchaser is entitled to return of the down payment where the mortgage contingency clause unequivocally provides for its return upon the purchaser’s inability to obtain a mortgage commitment within the contingency period” … . “However, when the lender revokes the mortgage commitment after the contingency period has elapsed, the contractual provision relating to failure to obtain an initial commitment is inoperable, and the question becomes whether the lender’s revocation was attributable to any bad faith on the part of the purchaser” … . Rivkin v 1946 Holding Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04427, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Here the mortgage commitment was revoked after the contingency period in the purchase contract had elapsed. Therefore the contingency provision was no longer operable. However, the seller was responsible for the revocation of the mortgage commitment for failure to submit an environmental report. Therefore the purchaser was entitled to return of the down payment.

August 30, 2023

Attorneys, Contract Law

HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR” THAT THE LOSER WOULD PAY THE WINNER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES; THEREFORE THE FEE AWARD WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs, who prevailed in this contract action (based upon a license to repair damage to plaintiffs’ property), were not entitled to have the defendants pay their attorney’s fees because the contract did not explicitly so provide:

“Under the general rule, attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” (id.). “The promise should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances” .. . “Inasmuch as a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney’s fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees, the court should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise” … .

Here, the license did not provide for attorney’s fees for the instant litigation. Neither of the paragraphs in the license regarding attorney’s fees provided for attorney’s fees in litigation between the parties over alleged breaches of the license. Because the parties did not make “unmistakably clear” in the license that they intended to depart from the general rule that the losing party is not responsible for the winning party’s attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees … . Giannakopoulos v Figame Realty Mgt., 2023 NY Slip Op 04364, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: The general rule is each party pays its own attorney’s fees. Any contract to the contrary must be “unmistakably clear,” not the case here.

August 23, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law

TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY BREACHED MUST BE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT; WHERE IT IS CONCEDED THAT A CONTRACT EXISTS, A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUASI CONTRACT MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not adequately allege breach of contract or quasi contract and therefore should have been dismissed:

“[T]o state a cause of action to recover damages for a breach of contract, the plaintiff’s allegations must identify the provisions of the contract that were breached” … . Here, the complaint failed to specify the provision of the parties’ contract that was allegedly breached … .

… Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging quasi contract sounding in restitution and unjust enrichment. The parties do not dispute that a contract … exists … . We Transp., Inc. v Westbury Union Free Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 04394, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: A complaint alleging breach of contract does not state a cause of action if the specific provisions alleged to have been breached are not identified.

Practice Point: Where the existence of a contract is conceded, a cause of action for quasi contract must be dismissed.

August 23, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence

THE DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED THE ADMISSIONS AGREEMENT USING AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT CALLED DOCUSIGN; THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant rehabilitation facility, Dewitt. did not demonstrate plaintiff’s decedent signed the facility’s admission agreements. Therefore the forum selection clause in the agreements should not have been enforced by the motion court. The agreements were allegedly signed using an electronic format called Docusign. But the defendant did not submit any evidence demonstrating how Docusign works and did not submit an affidavit by the representative who allegedly witnessed plaintiff’s signatures. The agreement was not, therefore, authenticated and was not admissible evidence of an agreement to the forum:

… [T]he “burden of proving the existence, terms and validity of a contract rests on the party seeking to enforce it” … . This requires, in the first instance, authentication of the purported writing … . Authentication may be effected by various means, including, for example, by certificate of acknowledgment (see CPLR 4538), by comparison of handwriting (see CPLR 4536), or by the testimony of a person who witnessed the signing of the document … .

Here, …in support of its motion, Dewitt submitted Trimarchi’s [the defendant’s director of admission’s] affidavit, along with copies of the admissions agreements. Trimarchi admitted, however, that she was not present during the signing of the admissions agreement. Trimarchi attested only to her understanding of how admissions agreements were usually signed; she had no actual knowledge of how the agreements bearing decedent’s name came to be signed. Moreover, Trimarchi did not describe any protocols governing the use of Docusign. Accordingly, her affidavit cannot serve to authenticate the agreements … . Dewitt did not seek to authenticate decedent’s signature by any other means, such as a certificate of acknowledgment or a handwriting exemplar. Since Dewitt failed to authenticate the agreements, it correspondingly failed to show that the forum selection clauses set forth in those documents are enforceable against plaintiff … . Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04258, First Dept 8-10-23

Practice Point: This case illustrates the need to authenticate signatures which involve some sort of electronic signing format. Here the defendant did not demonstrate how the electronic signature format worked and therefore did not authenticate plaintiff’s decedent’s signature. The forum selection clause in the agreement, therefore, could not be enforced.

August 10, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Trusts and Estates

EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE CORRECT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several causes of action including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of constructive trust, and breach of contract should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

“‘[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)'” … . * * * … [P]laintiffs discovered the alleged fraud in 2019 and the cause of action was timely commenced within two years. * * *

… [T]he statute of limitations on the cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust did not begin to run until 2019, when [defendant] allegedly breached his promise … . …

“[I]n order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that the parties’ dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs” … . * * *

… Supreme Court erred in concluding that the causes of action alleging fraud in the inducement and promissory estoppel are time-barred. The statute of limitations for those causes of action is six years … . …

The statute of limitations applicable to a breach of contract cause of action is six years (see CPLR 213[2]), “and begins at the time of the breach, even when no damage occurs until later, and even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury” … . Statharos v Statharos, 2023 NY Slip Op 04226, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here the criteria for determining the applicable statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of constructive trust, declaratory judgment, promissory estoppel, fraud in the inducement and breach of contract are discussed in some detail.

August 9, 2023

Contract Law, Corporation Law, Limited Liability Company Law, Negligence

THE ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL TO REACH DEFENDANT LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY FOR BREACH OF THE HOUSING MERCHANT IMPLIED WARRANTY OBLIGATIONS; AND DEFENDANT COULD BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT REPAIRS UNDER A HOME RENOVATION CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this home-renovation-contract dispute sufficiently alleged the corporate veil should be pierced to reach the defendant Assaf, member of the LLC, personally for failing to comply with the implied warrant requirements. Defendant could also be held personally liable for negligent repairs:

Among the plaintiffs’ allegations were that Assaf wound down the LLC’s business following the closing of title in an effort to keep the LLC undercapitalized and judgment proof and that, following the closing, he distributed sale proceeds without reserving sufficient assets needed to satisfy the LLC’s obligations under New York State’s housing merchant implied warranty and any contingent liability.

… “Although [c]orporate officers may not be held personally liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts, corporate officers may be held personally liable for torts committed in the performance of their corporate duties” … . Here, the plaintiffs adequately alleged that Assaf personally engaged in acts of negligence in performing repairs at the home … . Gold v 22 St. Felix, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04194, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here the allegation that defendant LLC member undercapitalized the LLC supported piercing the corporate veil for breach of the home merchant implied warranty obligations.

Practice Point: A member of an LLC may be personally liable for negligent repairs pursuant to a home-renovation contract.

August 9, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Corporation Law, Evidence

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.

August 2, 2023

Contract Law, Evidence, Negligence

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.

August 2, 2023

Contract Law, Family Law

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.

July 27, 2023