You are here: / Contract Law
,

THE LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF BENEFICIARY AGAINST DEFENDANT TRUSTEE DID NOT CHALLLENGE THE TRUST, BUT RATHER SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST; THEREFORE THE LAWSUIT DID NOT TRIGGER THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE (WHICH DISPOSSES A BENEFICIARY WHO SEEKS TO NULLIFY THE TRUST); THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit brought by plaintiff beneficiary of the estate (Carlson) against the trustee (Colangelo) did not trigger the “in terrorem” clause in the will and the trust. Therefore the provisions of the will and the trust remained enforceable by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to the real property bequeathed to her. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

The trust includes an in terrorem clause, which dispossesses a beneficiary or other challenger who contests or seeks to nullify the trust. The issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff triggered the clause when she commenced the underlying action against the trustee and thereby forfeited her bequests. * * *

We conclude that because plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks to enforce the Trust provisions as written and intended by the grantor, plaintiff did not attempt to nullify the Trust or challenge its terms. Thus, plaintiff did not violate the in terrorem clause and defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. We further conclude that plaintiff has established her right to summary judgment on her first cause of action regarding her ownership rights to the Premises and her motion should be granted to that extent. Carlson v Colangelo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a lawsuit against a trustee triggers an in terrorem clause in the trust document. Here the majority concluded the lawsuit did not challenge the trust but rather sought to enforce the provisions of the trust. Therefore the in terrorem clause was not triggered.

 

, ,

CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to this action for rent due as liquidated damages. Although the eviction proceeding in Civil Court awarded defendant the rent arrears, Civil Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for the rent due for the remainder of the lease term (post-eviction). Therefore the rent-as-liquidated-damages claim could be brought in Supreme Court:

This action, in which plaintiff seeks the recovery of rent arrears, is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as plaintiff could not have sought relief for its current claims in the Civil Court eviction proceeding. Although the rent arrears claim arises out of the same transaction as the claim for future rent … , res judicata is inapplicable where the plaintiff could not seek a particular remedy in the first action because of a limitation on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff wishes to seek that remedy in the second action … .

The liquidated damages clause in the lease expressly provided that plaintiff was under no duty to mitigate damages by re-letting the premises and further provided that, even if Levant was evicted, it was to remain liable for its monetary obligations under the lease … . However, Civil Court, which determined the eviction proceeding, is “without authority to address a claim for the balance of rent due” as liquidated damages … . Thus, once plaintiff had been awarded judgment in the summary proceeding, the parties’ relationship as landlord and tenant ended and whatever monetary liability Levant may have had to plaintiff at that point “was no longer in the nature of rent, but was in the nature of contract damages” … . Prospect Resources Inc. v Levant Capital N. Am., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02169, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the court which handled the eviction proceedings did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for post-eviction rent as liquidated damages. Therefore the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude the suit for the post-eviction rent in Supreme Court.

 

,

HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the bank’s (mortgagee’s) counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, an equitable lien and an equitable mortgage should have been dismissed. The bank was seeking reimbursement for costs associated with maintaining the mortgaged property which had allegedly been abandoned. Essentially, the Second Department held that the existence of the mortgage agreement, a contract, precluded recovery on the equitable theories, even though two of the three parties did not sign the mortgage agreement:

On September 6, 2005, the defendant Gladys Villa (hereinafter the borrower) executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Ossining (hereinafter the property). By bargain and sale deed dated March 8, 2006, the borrower retained a one-third interest in the premises for herself and conveyed the remaining interest to the plaintiffs, Miguel Auquilla and Hilda Guzman (hereinafter together the owners), as tenants in common. The borrower and the owners allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the note and the mortgage by failing to make the monthly payments due in December 2009, and thereafter. * * *

The mortgagee’s theory that the mortgage agreement does not govern the dispute since it was executed by the borrower and not by the owners is a novel one in this Court, but is ultimately unpersuasive. Although this Court has not explicitly recognized such a rule in this context, we now hold that there can be no quasi contract claim by a mortgagee against a third-party nonsignatory owner of property encumbered by a mortgage, the terms of which covers the subject matter of the dispute. Auquilla v Villa, 2025 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Where there is a contract which binds both signatories and third-party nonsignatories, quasi-contractual theories of recovery are not available.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner, 6810 Wai, was liable for an action by an independent contractor hired to repair the facade of defendant’s building. Defendant operated a bar on the ground floor of the building. The independent contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff, who was entering the bar:

[T]he well-settled general rule provides that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because it has no right to supervise or control the work” … . “An exception to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe” … . “Where, for example, premises are open to the public, the owner has a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress” … .

Here, 6810 Wai failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, as its submissions demonstrated that it had a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. The ground floor hookah bar was open to the public during the construction work, which created a nondelegable duty to the general public to maintain a safe ingress and egress, and, thus, 6810 Wai could be held liable for any negligence of its independent contractor … . Sultan v 6810 Wai, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01966, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The owner of property which is open to the public has a nondelegable duty to maintain safe ingress and egress. Here the building owner operated a bar on the first floor of a building. The owner had hired an independent contractor to repair the facade of the building. The contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff. The building owner could be held liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.

 

, , ,

IN ORDER TO SEEK COURT REVIEW OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AN EMPLOYER AND/OR A UNION, AN EMPLOYEE MUST BRING A PLENARY ACTION, NOT AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the dismissal of appellant-employee’s Article 78 petition, determined an employee who has exhausted the contractual grievance process and alleges the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding, for any further review:

… [W]hen a claim arises under a collective bargaining agreement that creates a mandatory grievance process, the employee “may not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, through the union, in accordance with the contract. Unless the contract provides otherwise, only when the union fails in its duty of fair representation can the employee go beyond the agreed procedure and litigate a contract issue directly against the employer” … . Allegations that an employer has breached the collective bargaining agreement are contract claims that may not be resolved in an article 78 proceeding … . Thus, when an employee alleges that an employer has breached a term in a collective bargaining agreement, the proper mechanism is a plenary action alleging both breach of contract by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union … . * * *

The procedure applicable to an employee’s claim depends on the source of the right or benefit the employee asserts. Statutory or constitutional claims are appropriately brought in an article 78 proceeding … . Claims arising exclusively from an alleged breach of a term in a collective bargaining agreement must be brought through a civil action for breach of contract … and must meet the requirements set out in Ambach (70 NY2d at 508). Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01671, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: An employee who, after exhausting the grievance mechanism in a collective bargaining agreement, seeks court review of whether the employer and/or the union breached the collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding.

 

, , ,

THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month statute of limitations in the employment contract with plaintiff was reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s action, which was commenced one day after the six-month limitation period had expired, was time-barred:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to [*2]commence an action is enforceable provided it is in writing'” … . CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement.”

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), “‘a moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired'” … . Once this threshold showing is met, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to “‘raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period'” … .

Here, the defendants produced the employment application, which contained the provision regarding the six-month limitations period and which was signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute that her employment was terminated on November 23, 2021. The defendants therefore established … that the limitations period expired on May 23, 2022. The plaintiff commenced this action on May 24, 2022, one day after the expiration of the limitations period. Salati v Northwell Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here the six-month statute of limitations in plaintiff’s employment contract was deemed reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s employment discrimination action, commenced six months and one day after her employment was terminated, was time-barred.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE ALLEGED FRAUD WHICH INDUCED HIM TO SIGN RELEASES; THEREFORE THIS FRUAD-BASED ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school in this Child Victims Act case (1) did not demonstrate the fraud-based causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases signed by the plaintiff were time-barred and (2) was not entitled to dismissal of the fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he would not have signed the releases had he known the guidance counsellor who allegedly sexually abused him would be allowed to continue in his employment, and he would not have signed the releases had he known there were other instances of sexual misconduct by the guidance counsellor of which the school was aware:  With respect to the statute of limitations for a fraud-based action, the court explained:

“A fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, whichever is later” (… see CPLR 203[g]; 213[8]). “The inquiry as to whether a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns on whether the plaintiff was possessed of knowledge of facts from which the fraud could be reasonably inferred” … . “Generally, knowledge of the fraudulent act is required and mere suspicion will not constitute a sufficient substitute. Where it does not conclusively appear that a plaintiff had knowledge of facts from which the fraud could reasonably be inferred, a [fraud-based cause of action] should not be dismissed on motion and the question should be left to the trier of facts” … . “Ordinarily, an inquiry into when a plaintiff should have discovered an alleged fraud presents a mixed question of law and fact” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish that the causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases on the ground of fraud were time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) … . “[T]here was no indication in the [amended complaint] or in the papers submitted by the defendant[ ] on [its] motion as to when the plaintiff became aware” of the alleged fraudulent conduct … . In any event, the plaintiff, in affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, indicated that he learned of certain facts underlying the fraud-based causes of action in early 2021 … . The defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered those facts at some point prior to the two-year period immediately preceding the commencement of this action … . Gormley v Marist Bros. of the Schs., Province of the United States of Am., 2025 NY Slip Op 01612, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant did not demonstrate when plaintiff could or should have become aware of the defendant’s alleged fraud. Therefore the motion to dismiss the fraud-based action as time-barred should not have been granted.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of what must be alleged to state causes of action for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment in the context of setting aside or rescinding a release.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A CANISIUS COLLEGE STUDENT IN 2020, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT BASED ON THE SHIFT FROM IN-PERSON TO REMOTE LEARNING BECAUSE OF COVID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action for breach of contract based on the cessation of in-person classes at Canisius College during COVID:

Plaintiff contends on his appeal that the court erred in granting the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action to the extent it sought recovery of the tuition he paid to Canisius for the spring 2020 semester. “New York courts have long recognized that the relationship between a university and its students is contractual in nature . . . , and that specific promises set forth in a school’s bulletins, circulars and handbooks, which are material to the student’s relationship to the school, can establish the existence of an implied contract” (Rynasko v New York Univ., 63 F4th 186, 197 [2d Cir 2023] …). Here, however, we reject plaintiff’s contention because “the amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations of an implied contract to provide exclusively in-person learning during the spring 2020 semester which are unsupported by any specific promise that is material to” plaintiff’s relationship with Canisius … . We agree with the Second Department that, in this context, the cause of action for breach of contract requires an allegation of “a specific promise to provide the plaintiff with exclusively in-person learning” … . The amended complaint also fails to state, in anything more than a conclusory fashion, the manner in which plaintiff’s unspecified course of study was impacted by Canisius’s shift to remote operations … . McCudden v Canisius Coll., 2025 NY Slip Op 01539, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE PURPORTED “OFF THE RECORD” STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK; A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE’S CLERK DOES NOT MEET THE “OPEN COURT” REQUIREMENT FOR A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the purported stipulation of settlement of this legal malpractice action did not meet the requisite criteria and could not be enforced:

It is well settled that ” ‘[a]n oral stipulation of settlement that is made in open court and stenographically recorded is enforceable as a contract and is governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect’ ” (… see generally CPLR 2104). Here, however, in support of her cross-motion, plaintiff failed to attach any transcripts or other evidence substantiating the purported settlement agreement. Indeed, we conclude that “[t]he record provides no basis for concluding that an enforceable stipulation was entered into between the parties” inasmuch as “[p]ertinent discussions took place off the record” … . Plaintiff also failed to establish that the terms of the settlement agreement were ever filed with the county clerk (see CPLR 2104 …).

Even if plaintiff had submitted written evidence of the parties’ purported stipulation of settlement, we conclude that said stipulation was not entered in “open court” inasmuch as there is no dispute that the alleged settlement was reached during a pretrial conference with the court’s law clerk … . Indeed, the “open court requirement . . . is not satisfied in locations without a Justice presiding . . . , and it is not satisfied during less formal stages of litigation, such as a pretrial conference” … . Guzman-Martinez v Rosado, 2025 NY Slip Op 01483, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for an enforceable stipulation of settlement, i.e., a transcript or other evidence of the terms of any oral agreement, the filing of the terms of the agreement with the county clerk, and the entering of the agreement in open court with a judge presiding.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy