You are here: / Contract Law

THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE CONTRACT RENDERED A CRUCIAL SENTENCE AMBIGUOUS; THE ERROR COULD NOT BE CORRECTED WITHOUT POSSIBLY ALTERING THE PARTIES’ INTENT; THEREFORE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO INTERPRET THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined there was a typographical error in the sentence describing the effective date of the contract which rendered the contract ambiguous. The dissent argued the intended meaning of the sentence was clear and the error should be corrected by the court: The effective date of the contract was crucial to a determination whether the contract was enforceable or had expired:

… [W]e are not ascribing one interpretation over the other. Rather, we are pointing out the multiple reasonable interpretations and concluding that additional information is necessary to ascertain the proper interpretation (see Castellano v State of New York, 43 NY2d 909 [1978]). In Castellano, when faced with a word in a lease clause that was grammatically inconsistent with the rest of the lease, the Court considered the different ways the parties proposed to change the clause to render it grammatically correct, both of which were reasonable. Each required altering a word in the lease. Rather than choosing one alteration over another, the Court found that there should be an exploration to ascertain the proper interpretation. …

… [T]hese are not “inadvertent errors,” or a “mistake” that can be corrected without altering the intent of the parties … . While “mistakes in grammar, spelling or punctuation should not be permitted to alter, contravene or vitiate manifest intention of the parties as gathered from the language employed” … , the [contract language] cannot be rendered grammatically correct without possibly altering the parties’ intent. “[T]he question of whether an ambiguity exists must be ascertained from the face of an agreement without regard to extrinsic evidence” … . Here, the … language is literally unclear and ambiguous and must be interpreted in light of extrinsic evidence. Mak Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op 07507, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: Although a court can correct an obvious typographical error in a contract, here the majority concluded there was more than one way to make the language grammatically correct, rendering the contract ambiguous. Extrinsic evidence was therefore necessary to interpret the contract.

 

, ,

THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the out-of-possession landlord was required under the terms of the lease to repair structural defects in the roof and walls and there was a question of fact whether such defects caused a crack in the floor. The cracked floor was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition which cause a load of tines in a payloader to fall and injure plaintiff:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when tires that were being moved by a forklift struck him when they fell from the forklift after it drove over a crack in the concrete floor. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the complaint asserted a negligence cause of action against Estes Express Lines (defendant), which owned the premises on which plaintiff was injured, alleging that defendant negligently permitted a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that contributed to his injury, i.e., the crack in the concrete floor. * * *

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendant was liable based on its contractual obligation to maintain the structural integrity of the roof and walls. … [T]he court …. properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. … [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit from one of plaintiff’s former colleagues and from a code enforcement officer, who each averred that the damage to the floor may have been caused by water damage or water infiltration due to poor maintenance of the roof and walls. Plaintiff’s former colleague further averred that defendant had conducted annual inspections of the property and had previously repaired damage to the floor of the premises. Thus, there is a question of fact concerning defendant’s liability for defects in the condition of the floor … . Weaver v Deronde Tire Supply, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07328, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord is liable for injury caused by dangerous conditions on the property can be determined by the terms of the lease. Here the lease required the landlord to repair structural defects in the roof and walls. Plaintiff alleged water entered the premises through those structural defects causing a crack in the floor which contributed to his injury. Plaintiff’s allegations survived summary judgment.

 

,

THE MOTION COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ADMITTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT A COUNTER STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ failure to submit a counter statement of undisputed facts (22 NYCRR 202.8-g[b]) should not have been deemed an admission to plaintiff’s statement of material facts. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted:

Although the court had discretion under section 202.8-g (former [c]) to deem the assertions in plaintiff’s statement of material facts admitted, it was not required to do so … .  “[B]lind adherence to the procedure set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.8-g” was not mandated … .

Here, considering that plaintiff’s statement of material facts did not fully comply with 22 NYCRR 202.8-g (d) and ignored the pivotal factual dispute arising from discovery, we conclude that, although it would have been better practice for defendants to “submit a paragraph-by-paragraph response to plaintiff’s statement” … , “the court abused its discretion in deeming the entire statement admitted” … . On the Water Prods., LLC v Glynos, 2022 NY Slip Op 07320, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff submitted a statement of material facts but defendants did not submit a counter statement of undisputed facts. The motion court was not required to deem the statement of material facts admitted and should not have done so under the specific circumstances of this case. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF COUNTRY CLUB AND DEFENDANT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF A BOAT SLIP WAS A LICENSE, NOT A LEASE, THE LICENSE, BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, WAS NOT TERMINABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the agreement between plaintiff country club and defendant concerning the construction, maintenance and use of a boat slip was a license, not a lease, but, under the terms of the agreement, the license was not terminable at will by the country club:

… [T]he terms of the agreement unambiguously state that defendant is required to pay the annual maintenance fee and to comply with plaintiff’s rules and policies, thereby establishing through implication that plaintiff may terminate the license only when defendant fails to comply with those specified terms … . Plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement as permitting plaintiff to terminate the license at will, despite the aforementioned provisions governing defendant’s obligations, renders those specific provisions nugatory, contrary to the general approach to interpreting contracts …

… [T]he agreement expressly permits defendant to terminate it and receive a return of the monies contributed pursuant to the payment agreement, less any monies owed to plaintiff. We agree with defendant that the express inclusion of a right of termination for her compels the conclusion that the exclusion of any corresponding express right for plaintiff to terminate the agreement was intentional … . … [The] structure of the agreement establishes that the license is not terminable at will by plaintiff. Skaneateles Country Club v Cambs, 2022 NY Slip Op 07315, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Licenses for the use of real property, here the construction, maintenance and use of a boat slip, are not automatically terminable at will. Here the terms of the underlying agreement were interpreted to mean the license was terminable only if defendant breached the agreement.

 

THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGE ORDERS; THEREFORE THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS WERE WAIVED AND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS NOT A BREACH (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to follow the construction contract provisions for change orders was not a breach of contract:

… [T]he parties’ lack of compliance with the change order procedure contained in the contract did not constitute a breach. … [T]he trial evidence established that the parties used informal text messages and emails in furtherance of project changes rather than following the formal, detailed change order process set forth in the contract. … [A] written change order requirement included in a construction contract “is not applicable where, as here, the conduct of the parties demonstrates an indisputable mutual departure from the written agreement and the changes were clearly requested by plaintiff and executed by defendant” …  Thus, the record amply demonstrates that the parties “waived their contractual right to insist upon strict compliance” with the change order condition … . 107 S. Albany St., LLC v Scott, 2022 NY Slip Op 07276, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The parities did not comply with the formal change order requirements in the construction contract. Therefore the formal requirements were waived and failure to comply was not a breach of contract.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this stairway slip and fall case was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for maintenance of the stairway treads:

Article 7(A)(i) of the lease imposed on Cava [the tenant] the obligation to maintain and repair the nonstructural portions of the demised premises … . The testimonial evidence established that Cava, consistent with its obligations under the lease, assumed responsibility over the subject staircase … . Although the lease granted defendants the right to re-enter to make repairs, the stairway condition was not a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … . Kamara v 323 Pas Owner LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07296, First Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The tenant, pursuant to the lease, had assumed responsibility for maintenance of the stairway where plaintiff fell. The defendant out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s default admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore damages should have been awarded for breach of contract:

A defaulting defendant is “deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . “The sole issue to be determined at an inquest is the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff” … . Here, the inquest court erred in considering the question of whether the defendants caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff … .

… [W]hile there is some uncertainty with respect to the plaintiff’s claim of lost profits, “when it is certain that damages have been caused by a breach of contract, and the only uncertainty is as to their amount, there can rarely be good reason for refusing, on account of such uncertainty, any damages whatever for the breach. A [party] violating [a] contract should not be permitted entirely to escape liability because the amount of the damages which [the party] has caused is uncertain” … . LD Acquisition Co. 9, LLC v TSH Trade Group, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07227, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore whether the defendant caused the damages alleged in the complaint should not be considered in the inquest. Here the failure to award any damages for breach of contract was not appropriate.

 

, ,

THE SO-ORDERED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RENDERED THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT MOOT; THE OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION RELIED ON SPECULATION ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined; (1) the stipulation between the two parties rendered the related cause of action in the complaint moot’ and (2) the other cause of action in the complaint was based on speculation about future events and therefore was not ripe for judicial review:

… [P]ursuant to the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” … . By contrast, if an “anticipated harm is insignificant, remote or contingent the controversy is not ripe” for judicial review … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

… [T]he first cause of action was resolved by the parties’ so-ordered stipulation. … [T]hat cause of action was rendered academic pursuant to the mootness doctrine … . … [T]he second cause of action relied on speculation about what the County and its various departments might do in response to future audits, and therefore the contemplated harm was both remote and contingent and the controversy was not ripe for judicial review … . Kennedy v Suffolk County, 2022 NY Slip Op 07226, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: If a cause of action has already been addressed by a so-ordered stipulation, the cause of action is precluded by the mootness doctrine. If a cause of action is based on speculation about future events, it is not ripe for judicial review.

 

,

THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal research contract (LexisNexis) signed by plaintiff-attorney was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable:

A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made, namely, some showing of “an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” … . Procedural unconscionability examines the circumstances at the time an agreement was entered into, including the commercial setting, whether deceptive or high-pressured tactics were employed, whether a party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, which party drafted the contract, whether fine print was used in an agreement as to material terms, whether there was an alternative supply for the goods or services in question, the experience and education of the party claiming unconscionability, whether there was disparity in the bargaining power, and whether a contract of adhesion is at issue … . Whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable presents a question of law for the court although it is a fact-based determination … .

… Plaintiff is an attorney, who did not assert any mental deficiencies, but only alleged duress from defendants’ conduct in pursuing his signature on the 2020 Agreement. The urgency underlying plaintiff’s signing the 2020 Agreement, without reading it, apart from promised lower service rates, is unclear. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how there is inequality in the bargaining power in this instance. Plaintiff is on equal footing with the defendants in understanding contract law, as well as the consequences of signing a contract. Moreover, the terms in the 2020 Agreement were similar to the majority of the material terms in the parties’ 2019 Agreement, which plaintiff does not claim was unconscionable. Kaufman v Relx Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07192, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff-attorney alleged the electronic legal research contract he signed with LexisNexis was unconscionable. The decision explains procedural and substantive unconscionability and held plaintiff, as an attorney, was on equal footing in negotiating the contract.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR THE TIME PLAINTIFFS WERE UNABLE TO LIVE IN THEIR TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ RENOVATIONS NEXT DOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision addressing many issues not summarized here, determined the plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were unable to live in their townhouse because of the renovation work undertaken by the defendants next door:

On May 2, 2013, after intensive negotiations guided by legal counsel, Mr. Seymour [plaintiff] and the Hovnanians [defendants] executed a license agreement. The purpose of the license agreement was to grant the Hovnanians 18 months of access to the Seymours’ property while simultaneously protecting the Seymours’ property from further harm during construction. The license agreement contained a liquidated damages clause providing that if the “Project Owner failed to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) within Eighteen (18) months from the date of this Agreement, he shall pay liquidated damages to the Adjacent Owner of $1,000 per day for every day thereafter until the TCO is issued.” The Hovnanians never obtained a temporary certificate of occupancy but, 318 days after the expiration of the 18-month license term, they obtained a certificate of occupancy. …

The court correctly awarded plaintiffs $318,000 in liquidated damages, plus interest, comprised of $1,000 per day for the period of November 2, 2014 to September 15, 2015. “Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . These provisions “have value in those situations where it would be difficult, if not actually impossible, to calculate the amount of actual damage” … . Liquidated damages will be sustained if, at the time of the contract, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Seymour v Hovnanian, 2022 NY Slip Op 07172, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the license agreement properly required liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were not able to live in their townhouse because of defendants’ renovations next door.

 

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