You are here: / Contract Law
,

THE TEXTS AND EMAILS WERE NOT SUBSCRIBED; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED UPON THE EMAILS AND TEXTS WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the emails and texts did not meet the criteria for a written contract (here a purported agreement to purchase property). The breach of contract cause of action was therefore barred by the statute of frauds:

Initially, “[a]n e-mail sent by a party, under which the sending party’s name is typed, can constitute a [signed] writing for [the] purposes of the statute of frauds” … . Here, however, not one of the text messages or emails submitted by plaintiff contains a signature block or other electronic signature of defendant. Those communications are therefore “clearly inadequate, since [they were] not subscribed, even electronically, by the defendant[] who [is] the part[y] to be charged, or by anyone purporting to act in [his] behalf” … . We further agree with defendant that the doctrine of part performance does not apply to defeat the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds (see § 5-703 [4]; CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff’s actions in paying property taxes and related expenses, including making renovations to a sunroom on the property, “were not ‘unequivocally referable’ to an agreement to purchase the property to warrant invoking the doctrine of part performance … . Preston v Nichols, 2023 NY Slip Op 02408, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: Here the texts and emails which were alleged to constituted a valid property purchase agreement were not subscribed. The breach of contract action based upon the texts and emails was therefore barred by the statute of frauds.

 

,

IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant snow-removal company, Landscapes, and the defendant property owners, Nambar, were not entitled to summary judgment in this parking-lot-ice slip and fall case. Landscapes did not show it did not launch an instrument of harm by piling snow which melted and formed ice, and the Nambar defendants did not show they did not have constructive notice of the icy condition:

… [S]ince the plaintiff’s pleadings alleged that the Landscapes defendants, through their snow removal efforts, created the icy condition in the parking lot, thereby launching a force or instrument of harm that caused the plaintiff’s injuries, those defendants, in support of their motion for summary judgment, were required to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . The Landscapes defendants failed to make such a showing, as they did not affirmatively establish that they did not create the icy condition by negligently piling snow in an elevated area in the parking lot, where it allegedly melted and created a stream of water that refroze … . …

… [T]he Namdar defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had constructive notice of the alleged ice condition. The deposition testimony of the Namdar defendants’ building engineer raised a triable issue of fact as to whether those defendants had notice of the condition that allegedly caused the ice to form, i.e., the stream of water flowing from the pile of snow in the elevated area of the parking lot … . In addition, the deposition testimony of [one of the Landscapes defendants] indicated that the building engineer had instructed him to pile snow in certain places, including the elevated area of the parking lot, thus raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the Namdar defendants were responsible for creating the alleged ice condition … . Tomala v Islandia Expressway Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02347, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case the snow-removal contractor did not demonstrate it did not launch an instrument of harm by piling snow such that it melted and formed ice and the property owners did not demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of or did not participate in the creation of the dangerous condition. The defendants should not have been granted summary judgment.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Count, determined the defendant, TIA, could not seek indemnification for plaintiff’s damages from third-party defendant, Freeman, because plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee for whom Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy:

Supreme Court should have dismissed TIA’s common-law indemnification and contribution claims on the ground that plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee when his accident occurred and therefore, the claims are precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Law. “A worker may be deemed a special employee where he or she is ‘transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another'” … . “While the mere transfer does not compel the conclusion that a special employment relationship exists, a court is most likely to find that it does where the transferee ‘controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … . Carey v Toy Indus. Assn. TM, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 5-2-23

Practice Point: If plaintiff’s sole remedy against a party is Workers’ Compensation, a defendant cannot seek indemnification from that party. Here plaintiff was the third-party defendant’s special employee so defendant could not seek indemnification from the third-party defendant.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SUIT BY YELLOW CAB MEDALLION OWNERS AGAINST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH OR DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES; PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WERE BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO REGULATE COMPETING SERVICES LIKE UBER AND LYFT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the lawsuit against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and New York City by taxi services which purchased yellow cab medallions at an auction in 2013 failed to state a claim. The plaintiffs argued defendants breached an implied covenant of good faith by failing to regulate competing services like Uber and Lyft and engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349:

… [T]he covenant cannot be used to “imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship,” and encompasses only those “promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs acknowledged in the bid forms that defendants made no representations or warranties “as to the present or future value of a taxicab medallion.” As plaintiffs concede on this appeal, that language is flatly inconsistent with any suggestion that defendants guaranteed the value of their medallions. …

… [P]laintiffs acknowledged in the bid forms that defendants made no representations or warranties “as to the present or future application or provisions of the rules of the [TLC] or applicable law.” The plain language of that disclaimer put plaintiffs on notice that they—not defendants—bore the risk that either TLC’s rules or its “application” thereof might change after the sale of the medallions. * * *

Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” (General Business Law § 349 [a] …). …. [T]he government’s issuance of a taxicab license is not a consumer-oriented transaction protected by section 349 … . Singh v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02141, CtApp 4-25-23

Practice Point: Yellow cab medallion holders, when the purchased the medallions at auction, agreed the bid included disclaimers stating the future value of the medallions was not guaranteed. Therefore the breach-of-a-covenant-of-good-faith cause of action failed. In addition, the deceptive business practices (General Business Law 349) cause of action the purchase of yellow cab medallions is not a consumer-oriented transaction subject to the statute.

 

, ,

HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MADE THE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE CRACKED STEP WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The court noted that if, due to the provisions of the lease, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for the repair of a defect, the fact that the landlord had notice of the defect is irrelevant:

“An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it ‘(1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision'” … .Here, defendant established that it was an out of possession landlord with no contractual obligation to make repairs or maintain the restaurant premises. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the lease agreement, all non-structural repairs to the premises were to be made by the tenant restaurant at its sole cost and expense. Moreover, the cracked step at issue was not a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … .

In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s assertion that there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant had actual notice of the cracked step on which plaintiff fell is without merit. An out of possession landlord may not be held liable even if it had notice of the defective condition prior to the accident … . Padilla v Holrod Assoc. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02082, First Dept 4-25-23

Practice Point: By the terms of the lease, the out-of-possession landlord was only responsible for structural repairs. The cracked step in this slip and fall case was not a structural defect. The fact that the landlord was aware of the defect was irrelevant.

 

THE PLAINTIFF, AFTER ASSIGNING HIS RIGHTS TO A STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT IN RETURN FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENTS, COULD NOT SUE THE INSURER PAYING THE SETTLEMENT ANNUITY FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE ASSIGNMENT, WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY ARGUED THE INSURER’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO HIS ASSIGNMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive dissent, determined that the plaintiff, Cordera, who had received a settlement award for lead poisoning, could not sue the insurer for failing to stop him from “selling” the rights to his 30-years-of-monthly-settlement-payments worth about $950,000 for about $270,000. The transactions were approved by a Florida court. Plaintiff unsuccessfully argued the defendant insurer’s failure to enforce the non-assignment provision of the settlement agreement (which prohibited the assignment of the settlement proceeds) was a breach of an implied covenant of good faith:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified to this Court a question requiring us to consider whether a plaintiff sufficiently pleads a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York law by alleging that, during a Structured Settlement Protection Act proceeding, defendants (i.e., the structured settlement obligor and the issuer of an annuity funding the settlement) failed to enforce the anti-assignment provisions contained in structured settlement and qualified assignment agreements. Based on our reformulation of the question, we conclude that such allegations do not state a cognizable cause of action for breach of the implied covenant. * * *

Cordero claims that the anti-assignment provisions provide that reasonable expectation because they can be read to require issuers and obligors to protect plaintiffs from their own actions by objecting to their attempts to make further assignments. This theory is, of course, dependent on the view that the anti-assignment provisions in structured settlement and qualified assignment agreements are, at least in part, for a plaintiff’s benefit. Even assuming that is true, however, a reasonable person in the position of such a plaintiff would not be justified in believing, at the time the agreements were made, that the anti-assignment provisions required the issuer and obligor to object to any attempt the plaintiff made to execute prohibited assignments as part of [a] proceeding in which the court is charged with determining whether the transfer is “in the best interest of the payee” … . Cordero v Transamerica Annuity Serv. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02091, CtApp 4-25-23

Practice Point: The insurer paying out settlement proceeds to an injury plaintiff is not obligated to object to the injured parties assignment of the settlement payments in return for a lump sump, even though the settlement agreement prohibits such an assignment. Here the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued the insurer’s failure to object was a breach of an implied covenant of good faith.

 

,

​ IN A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TELECAST RIGHTS FOR TWO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS, THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED ITS POWERS, WHICH WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BY IMPOSING A MONEY JUDGMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS AFFIRMED BUT THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS VACATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singas, determined that the settlement agreement controlled the limits of the arbitrator’s powers in this dispute between two major league baseball team and their co-owned sports network about the value of telecast rights. Pursuant to the settlement agreement the arbitrator had the power to decide the fees associated with the telecast rights, but did not have the power to impose a money judgment:

New York’s well-established rules of contract law, which apply to arbitration agreements, provide that courts will enforce a commercial contract between sophisticated and counseled parties according to the contract’s terms. In this case, two Major League Baseball (MLB) teams and their co-owned regional sports network are in a dispute regarding the fair market value of certain telecast rights. By affirming the confirmation of the second arbitration award and directing that the money judgment be vacated, we hold the highly sophisticated parties to the terms of their agreement. * * *

Although the courts below correctly confirmed the second arbitration award, the order appealed from must be modified because Supreme Court erred by awarding the Nationals prejudgment interest and rendering a money judgment in the Nationals’ favor. The settlement agreement grants the RSDC [the arbitrator] the power only to determine “the fair market value” of the telecast rights fees. The parties did not agree that the RSDC could resolve disputes over nonpayment of such fees. Instead, remedies for … nonpayment of those fees are governed by a different provision of the settlement agreement, which sets forth certain requirements, including a cure period. Only after that cure period expires do the Nationals “have a right to seek money damages.” Further, disputes over nonpayment of the fees appear to be governed by the settlement agreement’s more general dispute resolution provisions. Matter of TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v WN Partner, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02090, CtApp 4-25-23

Practice Point: Sophisticated parties (here major league baseball teams and a regional sports network) must be held to the terms of the underlying commercial contract. The arbitrator exceeded its powers by imposing a money judgment after deciding the fee dispute. The settlement agreement did not empower the arbitrator to impose the money judgment.

 

, , ,

THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, over a dissent. denied the petition to reinstate the original sentence in the prosecution of the owner of a limousine service. The brakes failed on one of petitioner’s limousines and the driver, 17 passengers and two pedestrians were killed. Petitioner pled guilty to 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to two years of interim probation, community service, followed by a period of probation. When it was discovered that the two-year interim probation was illegal, petitioner appeared before a different judge for resentencing, the respondent in this proceeding. The respondent refused to abide by the plea agreement and informed the petitioner he would impose a prison sentence. Petitioner withdrew his plea and the case was set down for trial. Petitioner then brought this Article 78 petition seeking a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition and specific performance of the plea agreement. In a complex ruling too detailed to fairly summarize here, the relief was denied. The dissenter argued petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement:

Mandamus to compel is an extraordinary remedy, commanding “an officer or body to perform a specified ministerial act that is required by law to be performed. It does not lie to enforce a duty that is discretionary” … . * * *

“… [I]mposing a criminal sentence is never ministerial” … . * * *

… [A] review of the merits leads us to conclude that the issuance of a writ [of prohibition] is unwarranted … . A “defendant [is not] entitled to specific performance of [a] plea bargain unless he [or she has] been placed in a ‘no-return position’ in reliance on the plea agreement” … . Matter of Hussain v Lynch, 2023 NY Slip Op 02049, Third Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted for the criteria for a writ of mandamus versus a writ of prohibition in the context of requiring a judge to abide by a plea agreement.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff insurer was entitled to summary judgment for a declaratory judgment of noncoverage because the defendants did not appear at the scheduled Examinations Under Oath (EUOs):

Plaintiff insurer seeks a declaratory judgment of noncoverage based, among other things, on its allegations that defendants Munoz, Cameron, and Santiago (collectively, the claimants) each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly noticed Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). In support of its motion for a default judgment against the defaulting defendants, plaintiff demonstrated through admissible evidence that the claimants each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly and timely noticed EUOs … . The documentary evidence shows that plaintiff sent the EUO scheduling letters to the claimants within 15 business days of receiving the prescribed verification forms (in this case, NF-3 forms), as required … . Contrary to the motion court’s calculation, the 15-day period starts with receipt of the NF-3 forms, not the NF-2 Application for No-Fault Benefits forms … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Soliman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01949, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath breaches a condition precedent in the insurance contract, entitling the insurer to a declaratory judgment of noncoverage.

 

, , ,

THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Chase, the defendant – lessor of the car involved in a traffic accident, did not present sufficient evidence of its status as the lessor for purposes of asserting the Graves-Amendment defense. The business records which would have established the lessor-lessee relationship were either illegible or were not submitted:

When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the motion should not be granted unless the evidentiary material “conclusively [establishes] that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … .

Pursuant to the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of the vehicle if (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner … .

… Chase attempted to establish the fact that it leased the subject vehicle to [defendant] through the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). … [E]ven assuming that the … affidavit had established a proper foundation, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … .. Since Chase failed to submit the purported assignment of the lease agreement, it failed to conclusively establish that … it was shielded by the Graves Amendment. Tello v Upadhyaya, 2023 NY Slip Op 01913, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Here the lessor of the car involved in the accident attempted to raise the Graves-Amendment defense but did not submit the business records showing the assignment of the lease. Therefore the affidavit laying a foundation for those records was hearsay and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted.

 

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