You are here: / 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.

 

,

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.

 

, , ,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

, , ,

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.

 

,

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.

 

,

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.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE TOWN ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT; TOWN LAW 65 (3) REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM WITHIN SIX MONTHS (WHICH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DO) AND MAKES NO PROVISION FOR FILING A LATE NOTICE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this breach of contract action against the town did not comply with the notice-of-claim requirement in the Town Law and the action therefore should have dismissed. Unlike other notice statutes, Town Law 65 (3) does not allow a late notice of claim:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover payment for highway repair work it performed for defendant, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to comply with the notice of claim provision under Town Law § 65 (3) and plaintiff cross-moved for leave to file a late notice of claim. Supreme Court denied the motion and granted the cross motion, concluding that, although plaintiff failed to comply with section 65 (3), it should be permitted to file a late notice of claim inasmuch as defendant had actual notice of the essential facts of the claim and did not demonstrate any prejudice that would arise from the late filing of the claim. Defendant appeals.

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the motion and in granting the cross motion. Town Law § 65 (3) requires that a written verified claim be filed with the town clerk “within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “[I]n contrast to other notice statutes, Town Law § 65 (3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements” … . Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v Town of Pendleton, 2023 NY Slip Op 01386, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Unlike other notice statutes, Town Law 65 (3) does not make any provision for filing a notice after the six-month deadline.

 

, ,

​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The initial breach of contract complaint was dismissed because it was not alleged the parties to the oral joint venture agreed to share the losses (therefore the statute of frauds applied to the agreement). The amendment sought to include the allegation the parties agreed to share the losses:

… Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the breach of contract causes of action in the amended complaint had previously been dismissed … . Moreover, under the circumstances here, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion. The defendants cannot be prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendments, which were premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences alleged in the amended complaint and “simply sought to cure the deficiencies cited by the Supreme Court in its earlier order which resulted in the dismissal” … . Further, the plaintiff explained that the omission of a loss-sharing allegation from the amended complaint was inadvertent, and he diligently sought to amend the pleading to correct the defect … . Benjamin v 270 Malcolm X Dev., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01275, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: In the absence of prejudice amendment of a complaint should be allowed. Here the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff did not allege the parties agreed to share the losses in an oral joint venture agreement which triggered the statute of frauds. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to allege the parties agreed to share the losses should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the breach of contract claims by the minority lenders against the majority lenders and a collateral agent should not have been dismissed. Collateral was sold to the majority lenders but the proceeds were not distributed to the minority lenders in the manner required by the credit and security agreements. The opinion is fact-specific and far too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he pro rata sharing provisions required that all minority lenders receive pro rata treatment of their debt obligations, which meant that the proceeds of the sale of the collateral (notes and equity) should have been distributed to all secured lenders pro rata in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. … While the Collateral Agent, as directed by the majority lenders, was authorized to define the terms, conditions, and limitations of how the restructuring sale should be carried out, the reorganization had to be for the pro rata benefit of all those holders of secured debt, including minority lenders. Thus, the minority lenders have the right to object to the restructure sale conducted through credit bidding based upon the failure to provide them adequate protection of their pro rata interest on the foreclosed collateral. AEA Middle Mkt. Debt Funding LLC v Marblegate Asset Mgt., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion concerns a private foreclosure of collateral and the distribution of the proceeds to the majority and minority lenders pursuant to complex credit and security agreements.

 

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