You are here: / Contract Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Vertex’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring defendant was the sole owner of the real property should have been granted. Vertex purchased the property from the record owner. The fact that the record owner had entered into an unrecorded agreement acknowledging beneficial ownership by others who contributed to the purchase price, including plaintiff, who resided on the property, did not affect defendant’s status as a good-faith purchaser, despite plaintiff’s filing a notice of pendency prior to defendant’s recording of the deed:

… [T]o establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry” … .

… Vertex established … that it purchased the subject property for valuable consideration, without actual or constructive notice of the plaintiff’s alleged interest … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his filing of a notice of pendency against the property before Vertex filed its deed did not negate Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . “[H]aving failed to avail itself of the protection of either Real Property Law §§ 291 or 294, the plaintiff may not successfully contend that its filing of a notice of pendency serves as a substitute for the recording of a conveyance or a contract” … . Vertex also established … that the plaintiff’s occupancy at the property “was not inconsistent with the title of the apparent owner of record,” and thus, did not defeat Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . In addition, Vertex established … that the 2008 agreement did not negate its status as a good-faith purchaser, as that agreement was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). Bello v Ouellette, 2022 NY Slip Op 07043, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff had entered an unrecorded written agreement with the record owner of the real property indicating plaintiff, who resided on the property, had a one-fourth beneficial interest in the property. Defendant was unaware of the agreement. Defendant’s goof-faith-purchaser status was not affected by the fact that plaintiff filed a notice of pendency before defendant recorded the deed.

 

,

THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer was required, under the terms of the policy, to defend the insured, LePore, in the personal injury action by Cole against LePore. LePore was fighting with another and Cole was injured attempting to break it up. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury intended or expected by the insured. The complaint alleged LePore negligently and carelessly struck Cole when LePore was trying to strike another person:

Plaintiff contends that no coverage exists under the insurance policy because LePore intended to cause physical harm to another person. An insured, however, may be indemnified for an intentional act that causes an unintended injury … . To determine whether a result was accidental, “it is customary to look at the causalty from the point of view of the insured, to see whether or not, from [the insured’s] point of view, it was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . In describing the incident at issue, LePore stated that she did not intend to hit Cole. The record also contains evidence that Cole was inadvertently hit. In view of this, a sufficient basis exists to conclude that Cole’s injuries were not expected or intended within the embrace of the policy exclusion … . To that end, LePore can be indemnified under the policy, not because she acted negligently, but because her intentional act caused unintended harm. …

Plaintiff may be correct that LePore committed an intentional tort based upon [the transferred-intent] doctrine. … Plaintiff, however, erroneously conflates tort principles with contract principles — the latter of which governs the interpretation of insurance policies … . Vermont Mut. Ins. Group v LePore, 2022 NY Slip Op 06978, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here the insurance policy excluded coverage for bodily injury intended or expected by the insured, LePore. Cole was injured when LePore unintentionally struck her as Cole tried to break up a fight between LePore and another. Because LePore injured Cole unintentionally, the insurer was obligated to defend LePore in the personal injury action brought by Cole.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, DECEDENT’S SON, SIGNED THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WHEN HIS FATHER, WHO HAD DEMENTIA, WAS ADMITTED; THE NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF, BY SIGNING THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BIND DECEDENT TO ARBITRATION OF DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE/PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home did not demonstrate plaintiff had the authority to bind the decedent to arbitration concerning the decedent’s negligence/personal injury action against the nursing home. Plaintiff is the decedent’s son who signed the admission agreement when his father, who suffered from dementia, was admitted. The nursing home did not present sufficient proof of plaintiff’s authority to sign the admission agreement on decedent’s behalf:

A party seeking to compel arbitration must establish “the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate” … . Here, the defendants failed to meet that burden because they did not submit sufficient evidence of the plaintiff’s authority to bind the decedent to arbitration at the time he signed the admission agreement on the decedent’s behalf. Most significantly, the defendants failed to submit the instrument through which the plaintiff allegedly derived his authority to bind the decedent to arbitration … . Evidence showing that the plaintiff represented to the defendants that he held a power of attorney when signing the admission agreement was insufficient to establish that he, in fact, held such authority as a matter of law … . Contrary to the defendants’ further contention, neither the plaintiff’s status as the decedent’s son … , nor his apparent willingness to be the decedent’s “responsible party” under the terms of the admission agreement … , have any bearing on his authority to bind the decedent to arbitration…. . Wolf v Hollis Operating Co., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06954, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff, decedent’s son, signed the nursing-home admission agreement when decedent, who had dementia, was admitted. The nursing home did not demonstrate plaintiff, by signing the agreement, had the authority to bind decedent to arbitration of decedent’s negligence/personal injury action against the nursing home. The fact that plaintiff represented that he had power of attorney for decedent was not enough.

 

, ,

THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING IN THIS STATUTORY, COMPULSORY ARBITRATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s ruling in this no=fault insurance case was arbitrary and capricious, noting that judicial review of statutory, compulsory arbitration is more stringent than review of a voluntary agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff GEICO paid the injured driver’s no-fault benefits and sought reimbursement from the insurer of the loaner car involved in the accident. The arbitrator denied reimbursement and the Second Department reversed:

Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate, the arbitrator’s determination is subject to “closer judicial scrutiny” under CPLR 7511(b) than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the parties … . To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding “must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” … . “Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether ‘any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation'” … . …

The arbitrator’s interpretation of the rental agreement … as relieving [defendant insurance company] of its obligation to provide mandatory personal injury protection (hereinafter PIP) coverage was contrary to 11 NYCRR part 65, which provides … that all motor vehicle insurance policies must contain a mandatory PIP endorsement; expressly sets forth the language of the PIP endorsement; permits deviations from the prescribed language only upon prior approval; and prohibits any release, express or implied, from mandatory or optional PIP benefits … . Matter of GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 12-7-22

Similar issues and result in Matter of Wesco Ins. Co. v GEICO Indem. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06933, Second Dept 12-7-22

​Practice Point: The Second Department explained that the criteria for judicial review of statutory, compulsory arbitration is more stringent than for judicial review of arbitration by voluntary agreement.

 

,

THERE CAN BE NO REPUDIATION WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff in this landlord-tenant dispute could not seek separate redress on a theory of repudiation for the breach of contract cause of action. The decision is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [B]ecause a party cannot repudiate a contract it has already breached, if the landlord is found to have breached the lease in 2015, there can be no repudiation in 2021 … . * * *

From the dissent:

A party “cannot simultaneously pursue a breach of contract claim and an anticipatory breach claim premised on the same underlying conduct” … . However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach … . Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06880, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: The majority held plaintiff could not seek redress on a theory of repudiation where there had been a breach of contract. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGING BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against defendant attorneys (BSF) alleging BSF billed for expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York:

The complaint stated a limited cause of action for breach of contract against BSF. The complaint sufficiently alleged that BSF overbilled or billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted to practice law in, or based out of, New York, and the documentary submissions do not utterly refute those allegations … . Kaufman v Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 06883, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated a cause of action against a law firm alleging the firm billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York.

 

, , ,

REDUCTION OF PETITIONER-SCHOOL-DISTRICT EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS BELOW THE LEVEL AFFORDED ACTIVE EMPLOYEES VIOLATES INSURANCE LAW 4235 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s reduction of petitioner-employee’s (Perrotta’s) retirement health benefits below the level afforded active employees violated the Insurance Law:

The moratorium law [Insurance Law 4235] sets “‘a minimum baseline or “floor” for retiree health benefits'” which is “‘measured by the health insurance benefits received by active employees . . . In other words, the moratorium [law] does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than active employees'” … . Thus, a school district may not diminish retirees’ health insurance benefits unless it makes “a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees” … . The purpose of the moratorium law is to protect the rights of retirees who “‘are not represented in the collective bargaining process, [and] are powerless to stop unilateral depreciation or even elimination of health insurance benefits once the contract under which they retired has expired'” … .

Here, since Perrotta submitted evidence establishing that the district diminished the health insurance contribution rate for certain retirees, and the district failed to proffer evidence that it made a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions for active employees, its determination violated the moratorium law. … Supreme Court should have granted the petition and annulled the district’s determination … . Matter of Perrotta v Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 06704, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner, a retired school district employee, successfully contested the reduction of her retirement health benefits below the level afforded active employees as a violation of Insurance Law 4235.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND PAROL EVIDENCE THEREFORE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR WHICH PAROL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract causes of action, which were properly dismissed because the contract was not ambiguous and parol evidence was therefore not admissible:

Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement. The fraudulent inducement cause of action is not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as the fraudulent inducement cause of action is not based upon promised performance of an obligation of the defendants under the pledge agreement, and the plaintiffs sought separate and distinct damages for each cause of action … . Furthermore, the use of parol evidence is not precluded to establish the fraudulent inducement cause of action … . Goodale v Central Suffolk Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06691, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent inducement cause of action was not duplicative of the dismissed breach of contract causes of action. Because the contract was not ambiguous, parol evidence was not admissible for the breach of contract causes of action. But parol evidence may be admitted in the fraudulent inducement action. The fraudulent inducement cause of action was not based on the performance of the contract and alleged separate and distinct damages.

 

,

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Airway Cleaners’ contract with American Airlines did not entirely displace defendant American Airlines’ duty to maintain the bathroom where plaintiff slipped and fell. Therefore the contract between Airway Cleaners and American Airlines could not serve as the basis for Airway Cleaners’ liability to third parties (plaintiff) under Espinal:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, insofar as relevant here, an exception to this general rule applies where “the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 140).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Airway Cleaners, LLC, by demonstrating that a limited janitorial service agreement between Airway Cleaners, LLC, and American Airlines was not a comprehensive and exclusive agreement which entirely displaced American Airlines’ duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . DaCruz v Airway Cleaners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06687, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here there was a contract between defendant Airway Cleaners and defendant American Airlines with respect to cleaning the premises at Kennedy Airport. The contract was not comprehensive enough to entirely displace American Airlines’ duty to keep the bathroom on the premises, where plaintiff slipped and fell, safe. Therefore, the contractor, Airway Cleaners, under the Espinal criteria, could not be sued by plaintiff.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO UCC 9-406 A LENDER’S SECURITY INTEREST IN A DEBTOR’S ACCOUNTS-RECEIVABLES IS AN ASSIGNMENT SUCH THAT A THIRD-PARTY WHICH HAS NOTICE OF THE ASSIGNMENT MUST MAKE ANY PAYMENTS OWED TO THE DEBTOR DIRECTLY TO THE LENDER (CT APP). ​

​The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that UCC 9-406 allowed the lender to collect the accounts-receivables owed to the debtor by third-parties. The lender (Worthy) had a security interest in payments made by a third-party (New Style) to the debtor (Checkmate) after the New Style received notice of the assignment:

We are called upon to determine whether, for purposes of New York’s Uniform Commercial Code § 9-406, an “assignee” includes the holder of a presently exercisable security interest in an assignor’s receivables. We hold that it does. Under UCC 9-406, a security interest is an assignment and the UCC is purposefully structured to permit a debtor to grant creditors security interests in a debtor’s receivables so that the secured creditor can direct account debtors to pay it directly. * * *

Worthy filed a UCC-1 Financing Statement against Checkmate with the Secretary of State of New Jersey, perfecting its secured position regarding Checkmate’s assets. … Worthy sent New Style a notice of its security interest and collateral assignment in the New Style accounts and directed New Style that “[a]ll remittances for Accounts shall be made payable only to Worthy.” … . * * *

An account debtor who receives a secured creditor’s notice asserting its right to receive payment directly can pay the secured creditor and receive a complete discharge (UCC 9-406 [a]) or, if in doubt, can seek proof from the secured creditor that it possesses a valid assignment and withhold payment in the interim (UCC 9-406 [c]). Worthy Lending LLC v New Style Contrs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06631, CtApp 11-22-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to UCC 9-406 a lender’s security interest in a debtor’s accounts-receivable is an assignment of the accounts-receivables to the lender such that, after notice of the assignment, a party owing payments to the debtor is obligated to make those payments directly to the lender.

 

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