You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

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.

 

, ,

​THE EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENTS) WERE PROPERLY ENFORCED; NINE OF DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY’S CUSTOMERS FOLLOWED PLAINITFFS AFTER THEIR TERMIINATION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment enforcing the nonsolicitation agreements were properly granted. Nine of defendant’s former customers followed plaintiffs after their termination from defendant’s employ:

… “[T]he application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . While such agreements are generally not favored, they can be “justified by the employer’s need to protect itself from unfair competition by former employees” … . “The employer has a legitimate interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of a client or customer, which had been created and maintained at the employer’s expense, to the employer’s competitive detriment” … . Here, when plaintiffs joined defendant’s insurance agency, neither had any prior experience in the insurance field, they were not licensed agents, nor did they have any clients or books of business of their own. As to the clients in question here, they were solicited, developed and serviced by defendant. As such, the accounts and clients are the product of defendant’s efforts, financial expenditures and goodwill, all of which defendant has a legitimate interest in protecting. Davis v Marshall & Sterling, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03050, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Here nine of the employer’s customers followed plaintiffs after their termination. Supreme Court properly enforced the nonsolicitation agreements. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

,

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE FULLY EXECUTED LEASE WAS EVER DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT TENANT; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE TERMS OF THE LEASE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-landlord was not entitled to summary judgment based on the terms of the second amended lease because the landlord could not show that the defendant-tenant was ever provided with a fully executed lease:

… [A] leasehold estate cannot be conveyed without a legal delivery of the fully executed lease to the lessee … , and plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof to rebut [defendant’s] showing that he never received delivery of the executed second amendment during the lease period. Evidence of defendant’s continued occupancy and payment of rent after expiration of the first amendment to the lease in 2016 is equally consistent with a month-to-month tenancy giving rise to an obligation to pay use and occupancy, and therefore does not, without more, prove delivery of the second amendment. Walber 82 St. Assoc., LP v Fisher, 2023 NY Slip Op 02993, First Dept 6-6-23

Practice Point: A leasehold estate cannot be conveyed without legal delivery of the fully executed lease to the lessee.

 

, ,

BUYER WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF “INCLUSIONARY AIR RIGHTS” (IAR’S); IAR’S DICTATE THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND (THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF FLOORS FOR EXAMPLE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined that a contract for the purchase of “inclusionary air rights” (IAR’s) was subject to specific performance. “Air rights” are controlled by zoning regulations. For example, if a 10,000 square-foot parcel of land is allowed 50,000 square feet of floor space, the air rights for that 10,000 square-foot parcel constitute 40,000 square feet. Here the contract for the purchase of air rights between sophisticated real estate developers was deemed to be subject to specific performance. Defendant seller tried to back out of the deal because the selling price was too low:

… New York courts have consistently considered air rights an “interest in real property” … . … [S]pecific performance is not solely limited to real property; the remedy may also apply in other instances, such as a conveyance of shares of stock in a close corporation or an agreement to sell shares in a cooperative real estate corporation … .

… [S]pecific performance may be available in actions where the market is opaque and the price of the goods is subject to intense fluctuation … . … [S]pecific performance is warranted because of the parties’ incorporation of a specific performance in their agreement, defendant’s willful breach of the agreement, the absence of an inequitable or disproportionate burden, and the admitted uncertainty of valuing IARs.  301 E. 60th St. LLC v Competitive Solutions LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02842, First Dept 5-30-23

Practice Point: A contract for the sale of “inclusionary air right” (IAR’s) which, for example, dictate the number of floors allowed in a building constructed on a parcel of land, can be subject to specific performance.

 

,

THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint seeking a judicial determination whether the contingent resource payment (CRP) agreement was breached when Exxon purchased InterOil Corporation was properly dismissed. Exxon successfully argued that plaintiffs’ only recourse was contractual under the terms of the CRP. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

[The CRP] § 8.05’s penultimate sentence not only provides that plaintiffs cannot bring a class action to challenge any aspect of the CRP agreement, but it also bars them from bringing any action or proceeding altogether, “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement . . . no individual Holder or other group of Holders will be entitled to exercise such rights.” Such “rights,” written in the plural as opposed to in the singular, refer to those set out in the beginning of the sentence — namely, “institut[ing] any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Agreement.” Mulacek v ExxonMobil Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02829, First De[t 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here a provision in the contract providing that no court action for breach of contract could be brought, a so-called “no action” clause, precluded plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

 

, ,

“EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT WILL; A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO MAKE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE TERMINABLE FOR CAUSE IS UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined a so-called “exempt employee (here the secretary to the town planning board) whose qualifications cannot be tested by a Civil Service examination is terminable at will. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) defined the bargaining unit to include the secretary and permitted the town to terminate only for “just cause.” When the secretary was fired the union filed a grievance and sought arbitration. The Court of Appeals held the secretary. as an “exempt employee”  was terminable at will and arbitration was therefore not available:

Certain civil service positions are classified as “exempt” when the position is of a confidential nature and requires personal qualities that cannot practicably be tested by an examination. Exempt class employees are therefore terminable at will. In this case, the parties entered into a collective bargaining agreement that purports to provide for-cause termination protection to certain exempt class employees. We hold the agreement unenforceable to the extent it grants such protections, and therefore this dispute over an exempt class employee’s termination is not arbitrable. Matter of Teamsters Local 445 v Town of Monroe, 2023 NY Slip Op 02754, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: A so-called “exempt employee” under the Civil Service Law is one whose skills cannot be tested by a Civil Service exam. Exempt employees are terminable at will. A collective bargaining agreement which purports to make exempt employees terminable for cause is unenforceable.

 

,

A DEADLINE SET IN A TIME-IS-OF-THE-ESSENCE LETTER CAN BE WAIVED ORALLY, OR EVEN BY CONDUCT ALONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant orally waived the deadline for the real estate transaction set in a time-is-of-the-essence letter:

… “[I]t is well settled, in New York, that an oral waiver of the time for the sale of real property will be given effect” … . [Plaintiff’s] assertion, made under the penalties of perjury, that he was assured by the defendant’s president that the plaintiff would not be held in default in the event that it failed to close the transaction on May 15, 2019, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s president made a statement … that operated as a waiver of the defendant’s right to enforce the May 15, 2019 deadline for the closing. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in order for such a waiver to occur, it was not necessary that the [time-is-of-the-essence] letter be withdrawn in a formal communication from the defendant’s attorney. A waiver of the right to timely performance under a contract “need not be in writing in order to be valid and enforceable” … . Such a waiver may occur even without an oral statement, such as the one that was allegedly made in this case, and may instead be inferred solely from a party’s conduct … . LG723, LLC v Royal Dev., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02653, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A deadline in a time-is-of-the-essence letter can be waived orally or by conduct alone.

 

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