You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

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.

 

, , , , ,

COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator in this employment dispute did not exceed her authority when she ordered that the employee be reinstated with back pay. The employee had been absent from work and the employer (the county) the absence a voluntary resignation. Supreme Court had affirmed the employee’s reinstatement but found the arbitrator had exceeded her authority by ordering the back pay:

… “[J]udicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited. Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact” … . “[I]t is well settled that an arbitrator has broad discretion to determine a dispute and fix a remedy, and that any contractual limitation on that discretion must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause itself” … .

We discern no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award as to back pay and benefits. Notably, the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] does not contain “a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . In fact, it does not explicitly limit the arbitrator’s authority in any way other than stating that the arbitrator does not have the power to “amend, modify or delete any provision of the CBA,” which does not set any limitations on the arbitrator’s power to order the remedy that he or she sees fit … . Matter of County of Albany (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Albany County Local 801), 2023 NY Slip Op 01828, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here the arbitrator ordered a county employee reinstated with back pay. Supreme Court held the arbitrator exceeded her powers by ordering back pay. The Third Department noted the courts’ limited review powers re: arbitration rulings and found no basis for concluding the arbitrator had exceeded her powers.

 

, ,

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.

 

,

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.

 

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