Contract Law – Page 25 – New York Appellate Digest

Account Stated, Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor

THE AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY CPLR 5001; THE REQUEST FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING SUIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff attorney was entitled to prejudgment interest in this breach of contract action against defendant, a former client, seeking payment of plaintiff’s fee for legal services:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that her motion seeking an award of prejudgment interest should have been granted. Supreme Court faulted plaintiff for waiting until 2020 to commence this action to recover monies owed as a result of a legal representation that ended in 2015 but, as prejudgment interest only compensates the judgment creditor for the loss of use of money he or she was owed and is not a penalty, the “responsibility for the delay [in bringing suit] should not be the controlling factor in deciding whether interest is to be computed” … . Rather, prejudgment interest in a breach of contract action is required by CPLR 5001, running “from the earliest ascertainable date on which the prevailing party’s cause of action existed ‘[or,] if that date cannot be ascertained with precision, . . . from the earliest time at which it may be said the cause of action accrued’ ” … . Supreme Court determined in the April 2022 order that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract accrued when she completed her legal services on May 23, 2015. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest running from that date…. O’Keefe v Barra, 2023 NY Slip Op 01829, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: This was a breach of contract action brought by an attorney against a former client for failure to pay the legal fees. The fact that the attorney stopped representing the client in 2015 and didn’t bring suit until 2020 was not a ground for the denial of prejudgment interest, which is required in breach of contract actions by CPLR 5001. The court noted that prejudgment interest is not a penalty.

April 6, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor

PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, who obtained a New Jersey default judgment against three defendants, need only serve one of the defendants in this action to enforce the foreign judgment:

In October 2013, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant Tirepool, LLC … for the purchase of a used car. The contract was negotiated by the defendants Jeff Massicott and Vivian Wallace, the owners/managers of Tirepool. The defendants breached the contract and retained the plaintiffs’ down payment. … [T]he plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey action). The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $26,548.32. …

CPLR 1501 provides: “Where less than all of the named defendants in an action based upon a joint obligation, contract or liability are served with the summons, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise directs, and if the judgment is for the plaintiff it may be taken against all the defendants.” Here, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in the New Jersey action and, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Wallace without effectuating service on the other defendants.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint insofar as asserted against Wallace. Obed v Tirepool, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here there was a foreign default judgment against three defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiffs only served one of the defendants with a summons in lieu of complaint to enforce the foreign judgment. Plaintiffs did not need to serve the other two defendants and could proceed against the defendant who was served.

April 5, 2023

Contract Law, Limited Liability Company Law

BUYERS OF THE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT THE BUYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a factually complex opinion by Justice Oing, determined (1) the specific performance provisions in the purchase agreement survived termination of the purchase agreement; and (2) the buyer’s summary judgment motion seeking specific performance should not have been granted. The facts of the case are far too detailed to summarize here.

This dispute arises out of a failed sale of a home healthcare agency. The seller accuses the buyer of repudiating the contract; the buyer charges that seller thwarted its efforts to close the deal because of seller’s remorse. At stake: who owns the business. If the seller prevails, it retains the termination fee; if the buyer prevails, the contractual remedy of specific performance compels the seller to close and sell the company to the buyer. …

The parties entered into the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated September 25, 2019, wherein the seller agreed to sell its interest in Extended Nursing to the buyer for $49 million. The Purchase Agreement required the buyer to make an initial escrow deposit of $1.47 million, which amount would be retained as a termination fee by the seller in the event that the buyer did not close. One of the critical components of the purchase, for which the seller specifically negotiated, was that closing should occur at the earliest practicable time. … The outside date was March 25, 2021 — 18 months after the date the parties executed the Purchase Agreement. The seller claims that the outside date was an essential term … . … § 14.17 of the Purchase Agreement provides the buyer with the remedy of specific performance, which, under Purchase Agreement § 12.2(c), survives termination of the Purchase Agreement. Extended CHHA Acquisition, LLC v Mahoney, 2023 NY Slip Op 01762, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Here the specific performance provisions of the purchase agreement survived the termination of the agreement, but the buyers’ motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance should not have been granted.

April 4, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law

RE: DETERMINING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION FOR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PURPOSES, THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS USUALLY IN THE “PLACE OF INJURY,” WHICH IS USUALLY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, noted that for breach of contract actions alleging purely economic injury the claims accrue in the “place of injury,” usually plaintiff’s residence:

… Supreme Court should not have found that the claims accrued in New York and were timely under New York’s six-year statute of limitations. In contract cases involving a purely economic injury, accrual is determined by the “place of injury,” which usually is determined by applying the “plaintiff-residence” rule; this rule asks where the plaintiff resides and where it feels the economic impact of the loss … . MLRN LLC v U.S. Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 01748, First Dept 3-30-23

Practice Point: A breach of contract action alleging purely economic injury usually accrues in the “place of injury” which is usually where plaintiff resides.

March 30, 2023

Contract Law, Evidence

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT, BUT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this breach of contract action did not demonstrate the alleged cost of correcting defendant’s defective work was fair and reasonable. Therefore summary judgment on the damages amount should not have been granted:

To recover damages for breach of contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate “the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach” … . Here, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action. The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the defendant breached the agreement by not following the specifications provided by NYSTA [New York State Transit Authority]. … [T]he Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action.

The Supreme Court erred, however, in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of damages on the breach of contract cause of action. “In an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract, the proper measure of damages is the fair and reasonable market price for correcting the defective installation” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the costs it incurred in correcting the defective work were fair and reasonable … . Ben Ciccone, Inc. v Naber Elec. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01656, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff may be entitled to summary judgment on whether defendant breached a contract and still be denied summary judgment on the amount of damages.

March 29, 2023

Attorneys, Contract Law, Privilege, Trademarks

DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PROVIDE FALSE TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE ACTION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IN THIS RELATED ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S BREACHED A CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action should not have been granted. The complaint alleged breach of a confidentiality and nondisparagement agreement (TRB Agreement) which stemmed from a trademark infringement and unfair competition action brought by nonparty Reebok. “… [D]efendant and his attorneys allegedly caused anonymous phone calls to be made to Reebok’s counsel stating that defendant possessed information that TRB [plaintiff] ‘intended to copy Reebok from the get-go.’ Defendant’s attorneys also notified Reebok’s counsel that defendant would comply with a subpoena issued to him. Reebok listed defendant as a witness before trial and detailed defendant’s expected testimony, including allegedly false testimony that TRB intended to create a ‘knockoff’ brand infringing on Reebok’s marks. The description of expected testimony also made clear that defendant had breached the TRB Agreement by disclosing information concerning TRB’s operations and information concerning the Reebok litigation:”

The main issue presented on this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ complaint alleges conduct upon which invocation of the absolute litigation privilege would constitute abuse of the privilege such that its protections should not apply or be withdrawn.

Examination of the applicable law, particularly with respect to plaintiffs’ proposed exception to the privilege, demonstrates that the course of conduct alleged implicates a limited exception analogous to that applied in Posner v Lewis (18 NY3d 566 [2012]) to another absolute privilege. Accordingly, where a party engages in an extortion attempt by threatening to provide false testimony in a separate action if their demands are not accepted, and, following rejection, affirmatively reaches out to the extortion target’s adversaries in the separate litigation, indeed offering to provide false testimony in that action, the absolute litigation privilege will not bar the action. TRB Acquisitions LLC v Yedid, 2023 NY Slip Op 01654, First Dept 3-28-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s offer to provide false testimony in a separate proceeding was not protected by the litigation privilege in this action alleging defendant’s breach of a confidentiality and nondisparagement agreement.

March 28, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of implied contract and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of implied cause of action based on documentary evidence should not have been granted:

“Whether an implied-in-fact contract was formed and, if so, the extent of its terms, involves factual issues regarding the intent of the parties and the surrounding circumstances” … . Contrary to the court’s determination, whether plaintiff “can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … and, here, plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently state a cause of action for breach of an implied contract arising from an implicit agreement to extend the brokerage contract … . Similarly, the complaint sufficiently alleges the elements of a claim for unjust enrichment … .

… “A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) will be granted if the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the [plaintiff’s] claim[s]” … . Although contracts are among the types of documentary evidence that may be considered for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) … , we conclude that the contract submitted by defendants in support of their motion failed to “utterly refute . . . plaintiff’s allegations [that the contract was implicitly extended] or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law” … . University Hill Realty, Ltd v Akl, 2023 NY Slip Op 01634, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the breach of implied contract cause of action should not have been dismissed.

Practice Point: The motion to dismiss the breach of implied contract cause of action based on documentary evidence should not have been granted. Although a contract can be the type of evidence which qualifies as “documentary evidence” here the contract did not utterly refute the allegation the contract was extended.

March 24, 2023

Contract Law, Insurance Law, Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this sidewalk slip and fall case, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, determined a provision of the master lease violated General Obligations Law 5-321:

General Obligations Law § 5-321 states that “[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The Court of Appeals, in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (42 NY2d 153 [1977]) and Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412 [2006]), established an exception to General Obligations Law § 5-321. Parties to a lease agreement may execute a provision requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord from the landlord’s own negligence. However, the lease must also contain an insurance provision “allocating the risk of liability to third parties” because “[c]ourts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance … . Insurance procured by the tenant in satisfaction of the indemnity clause provides the injured plaintiff with adequate recourse for the damages suffered … .

… Article 13 of the master lease requires Regent [the landlord] to be indemnified for all claims “provided however that the same shall not arise from the willful acts of Landlord during the term of this Lease.” On its face, we find that this provision violates General Obligations Law § 5-321. Bessios v Regent Assoc., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01583, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A lease which requires the landlord to be indemnified for its own negligence violates General Obligations Law 5-321 unless the lease also requires the tenant to procure insurance which will compensate the injured party for the landlord’s negligence.

March 23, 2023

Contract Law, Securities

A MUTUAL MISTAKE IN AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PRICE OF SHARES OF STOCK WARRANTED REFORMATION OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, determined a mutual mistake in an agreement justified reformation of the contract. The opinion is too detailed to fully summarize here:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court correctly held that the parties intended to include an antidilution provision that provided for the adjustment of both the share price and the number of shares when common stock was issued at a price below plaintiffs’ exercise price, and that, as result of mutual mistake, inadvertently left the word “sentence” and did not change it to the plural, “sentences” in section 3(b) … .Accordingly, upon exercise of their warrants, plaintiffs were entitled to the value of the adjusted number of shares that were owed but not delivered (565,822 shares). Empery Asset Master, Ltd. v AIT Therapeutics, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01585, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A mutual mistake in a contract allows reformation of the contract to reflect the intent of the parties.

March 23, 2023

Contract Law, Insurance Law

PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “ensuing loss’ exception to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion applied. The plumbers apparently used the wrong adhesion material for a water-pipe connection. The connection failed and the house was flooded. The “ensuing loss” exception to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion “provide[s] coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage:”

We conclude that the ensuing loss exception applies to provide coverage for the household water damage because the excluded peril of faulty workmanship resulted in “collateral or subsequent damage” … “to property ‘wholly separate from the defective property itself’ ” … , and plaintiffs’ claim is for “a new loss to property that is of a kind not excluded by the policy,” i.e., sudden and accidental water leakage from within a plumbing system … . In other words, the ensuing loss exception provides coverage here because, as a result of an excluded peril (faulty workmanship), a covered peril arose (water discharge from a plumbing system) and caused other harm (water damage) to separate property (areas throughout the house) … . Ewald v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 01439, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Here water damage throughout the house was covered by the “ensuing loss” exception to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in the home insurance policy. The plumbers used the wrong material for a water-pipe connection and the house was flooded.

March 17, 2023