You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

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.

 

, ,

HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, after reinstating the tortious interference with contract cause of action, determined a non-signatory can be bound by a forum selection clause under the “closely related” doctrine. where the non-signatory and the party to the agreement have such a close relationship that it is foreseeable the forum selection clause will be enforced against the non-signatory:

We find that plaintiff alleged a sufficiently close relationship between Vivendi and the Editis Defendants to justify subjecting it to personal jurisdiction in New York … .  Plaintiff alleged that Editis … was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi, that Vivendi’s CEO was also the Chairman of Editis, and that Vivendi managed the Editis Defendants’ performance of the subject agreement …. . EPAC Tech. Ltd. v Interforum S.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03543, First Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here the “close relationship” doctrine warranted finding the non-signatory was bound by the forum selection clause in the agreement. The non-signatory was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the party to the agreement and the non-signatory’s CEO was the chairman of the party to the agreement.

 

, , , ,

THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, revering Supreme Court, determined the declaratory judgment causes of action were time-barred according to the statutes of limitations applicable to the underlying allegations, i.e., fraud, unjust enrichment, Real Property Law (RPL) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) causes of action:

“Actions for declaratory judgments are not ascribed a certain limitations period. The nature of the relief sought in a declaratory judgment action dictates the applicable limitations period. Thus, if the action for a declaratory judgment could have been brought in a different form asserting a particular cause of action, the limitations period applicable to the particular cause of action will apply” … . Here, the cause of action for declaratory relief could have been, and previously was, brought in the form of causes of action to recover damages for fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Since the instant action was commenced more than six years after the plaintiff allegedly was fraudulently induced to convey title to the property and more than two years from the discovery of the alleged fraud, the cause of action for declaratory relief was time-barred … .

… [T]he second cause of action … seeks to void the defendant’s title to the property by virtue of the plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff was fraudulently induced into conveying title to the defendant. Accordingly, this cause of action is governed by the six-year statute of limitations governing actions based upon fraud and, therefore, was untimely.

… [T]he cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment accrued … when the deed conveying title to the defendant was executed, and, therefore, this cause of action was also time-barred.

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Real Property Law § 265-a was time-barred since it was commenced more than two years after recordation of the subject deed and more than six years after the alleged fraudulently induced conveyance. Mahabir v Snyder Realty Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03342, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The applicable statutes of limitations for declaratory-judgment causes of action depend on the nature of the underlying allegations. Here the underlying allegations sounded in fraud, unjust enrichment and Real Property Law causes of action. All were time-barred.

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES FOR A BREACH; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS TO, SUA SPONTE, AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent (LOI) was an agreement to agree which, if breached, supported only out-of-pocket damages, not cover damages. The judge improperly relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs:

… [R]ecovery for breach of a preliminary agreement’s confidentiality provision could not be based on “the theory that it would have acquired” the company at issue, as the “defendant[] w[as] not bound to go forward with the transaction” … . * * *

… [T]he text of the LOI and the surrounding circumstances support a finding that the parties did not contemplate cover damages at the time of contracting. That the parties entered only a preliminary agreement with no obligation to close a transaction and no specific damage provision for breach conclusively shows that defendant did not wish to assume the risk of covering whatever replacement transaction plaintiffs might pursue … .

… [T]he court improperly relied on credibility determinations to resolve material issues that should have been resolved by the jury. It is “not the function of a court deciding a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations” … . Cresco Labs N.Y., LLC v Fiorello Pharms., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: Here the letter of intent was an agreement to agree which contemplated only out-of-pocket damages for a breach.

Practice Point: The judge should not have relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs.

 

, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined: (1) the email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys did not constitute a settlement agreement; and (2) to be valid any stipulation of settlement must be placed on the record in open court, reduced to a court order and contained in a writing subscribed by the parties or counsel (not done here). The case concerns a dispute over the distribution of the estate of the deceased between the deceased’s daughter and wife. There was a two-justice dissent which argued a valid settlement agreement had been reached. The dissent made no mention of the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement:

Surrogate’s Court erred in finding that a binding agreement was formed, as the parties did not mutually assent to all material terms. To the extent that the daughter’s counsel asserts that the initial email set out an overview of the material terms to which the parties agreed during the ADR session, we note that such verbal out-of-court agreements are insufficient to form the basis for a stipulation of settlement (see CPLR 2104 …). The initial email and the subsequent correspondence also fail to establish that the parties reached an agreement. * * *

We also remind the parties that, to be enforceable, stipulations of settlement require more than just an agreement among the parties. Once the parties to an active litigation reach an agreement, they must (1) place the material terms of such agreement on the record in open court, (2) reduce them to a court order which is then signed and entered or (3) contain them in a writing subscribed by the parties or their counsel (see CPLR 2104 …). Matter of Eckert, 2023 NY Slip Op 03270, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question whether email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys after a settlement conference formed an enforceable settlement agreement. The majority said “no” and the two dissenters said “yes.” Although the issue does not seem to be determinative in this decision, the majority noted that the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement were not met (open court, reduced to an order, writing signed by the parties or counsel).

 

, ,

IN THESE ACTIONS BY INVESTORS AGAINST TRUSTEES STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (RMBS) THE COURT HELD (1) CLAIMS AGAINST TRUSTEES ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY A NO-ACTION CLAUSE (2) THE TRUSTEES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE REPURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND (3) THE TORT CLAIMS WERE DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the appellate division, over two dissents, in these actions by investors against the trustees stemming from the collapse of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS], determined (1) claims against a trustee are not precluded by a “no action” clause, (2) trustees are not required to enforce repurchase obligations, and (3) the tort claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claims:

… RMBS [residential mortgage-backed securities] are financial instruments, popular in the mid-2000s, backed by individual mortgage loans …  The securitization process involves a “sponsor” who acquires a bundle of loans from banking institutions (“originators”) and sells the pooled loans to a “depositor,” who places the loans into a trust … . The trust issues certificates purchased by investors, who are entitled to a portion of the revenue stream from the borrowers’ payments … . The mortgage loans in the trust are serviced by a “servicer,” a party typically affiliated with the sponsor or originator. Each trust has a Trustee which acts on behalf of the Trust and whose responsibilities are prescribed by the securitization trusts’ governing agreements. While our previous RMBS cases have been brought by RMBS trustees, investors, or their insurers against RMBS sponsors, depositors, servicers, and originators (collectively, obligated parties) to recover for losses on the certificates, here the investors are suing the RMBS Trustees. * * *

… [C]laims against the trustee . . . cannot be prohibited by a no-action clause” … . “Because a standard no-action clause vests in the trustee all of the securityholders’ rights to bring suit, making the trustee the only path to a remedy, courts have been unwilling to enforce such clauses when the trustee’s conflicts or irrationality bar that path to relief” … . … [t]he Trustee cannot not sue itself ,,, and therefore compliance was not required. * * *

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that they breached the governing agreements by failing to enforce repurchase obligations, arguing that these agreements do not impose such a duty on trustees…. . We … hold that the governing agreements do not impose on defendants an affirmative duty to enforce repurchase obligations and so those claims should be dismissed. * * *

We hold that, to the extent any tort claims remain, they should be dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claims. IKB Intl., S.A. v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03302, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) investors sued the trustees. The actions were not prohibited by no-action clauses. The trustees were not obligated to enforce repurchase agreements. And the tort claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claims.

 

​ A SUBCONTRACTOR’S DAMAGES FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY COMPARING ACTUAL COSTS TO THE BID PRICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the subcontractor (Frey) did not submit sufficient proof of damages caused by construction delays:

… [W]here a subcontractor is claiming delay damages, the subcontractor “must establish the extent to which its costs were increased by the improper acts because its recovery will be limited to damages actually sustained” … . “[I]t has repeatedly been held improper to prove excess labor costs by comparing the total labor costs for the project with the bid estimate for the labor, because of[, among other things,] the inherent unreliability of the price elements of a bid” … . LPCiminelli, Inc. v JPW Structural Contr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03112, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: A subcontractor’s damages for construction delay cannot be proven by comparing actual costs to the bid price.

 

, , ,

AN ORAL STIPULATION IS INVALID PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW SECION 236(B)(3) AND CANNOT BE RATIFIED; THERE IS NOW AN EVEN SPLIT AMONG THE APPELLATE DIVISION DEPARTMENTS ON THIS ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting a split among the appellate-division departments, determined an oral stipulation was invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3):

… [T]he parties’ oral stipulation is not enforceable because, although it was entered in open court, it was not reduced to writing, subscribed, or acknowledged by the parties, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3). Although plaintiff’s attorney stated at the time of the oral stipulation that she “would prefer just to do the oral stipulation,” the statute unambiguously provides that, in order for an agreement regarding maintenance or a distributive award “made before or during the marriage” to be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action, the agreement must be “in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded” … . We have repeatedly held that oral stipulations do not comply with the statute … . …

… Supreme Court erred in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff ratified the oral stipulation. The proposition that an agreement that fails to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3) could be upheld if ratified by the parties was implicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals in Matisoff.[90 NY2d 135-136] … . Cole v Hoover, 2023 NY Slip Op 03103, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: An oral stipulation is invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3) and cannot be ratified. There is now an even split among the appellate division departments on this issue.

 

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