You are here: / Contract Law
,

THE NOTICE SENT TO THE BORROWERS IN 2012 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the notice sent to the defendants was not sufficient to accelerate the mortgage debt and, therefore, the debt had not been accelerated at the time this foreclosure action was brought: Supreme Court properly dismissed the foreclosure complaint:

\… [T]he defendants’ submissions in support of that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint demonstrated that the loan matured in 2038 and that the defendants had not commenced a prior foreclosure action. The defendants also submitted a copy of the 2012 notice, which did not demand the entire outstanding balance on the loan, but, as the Supreme Court found, only demanded the amount due as of that date. Notably, the 2012 notice stated that if the plaintiffs were unable to pay the arrears, there were “various options that may be available . . . to prevent a foreclosure sale of [the] property” such as a repayment plan, loan modification, sale of the property, or deeding the property to the noteholder. Thus, the 2012 notice did not set forth the defendants’ clear and unequivocal election to accelerate the debt, but instead, was a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event … . Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, that the consolidated mortgage had not been accelerated at the time the plaintiffs commenced this action.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the plain meaning of the word “may” as it appears in paragraph 22 of the consolidated mortgage renders that provision optional, and “[w]here, as here, the acceleration of the maturity of a mortgage debt is made optional with the holder of the note and mortgage, ‘some affirmative action must be taken evidencing the holder’s election to take advantage of the accelerating provision, and until such action has been taken the provision has no operation'” … . Knox v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03107, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Here the notice sent by the bank to the borrowers in 2012 did not unambiguously accelerate the debt within the meaning of the mortgage document. Therefore the foreclosure complaint was properly dismissed.

 

, ,

A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Wormser’s) action for breach of the forum selection clause seeking attorney’s fees could go ahead. The defendant’s (L’Oreal’s) New Jersey action had been dismissed “without prejudice,” which was not a determination on the merits, and therefore Wormser’s action was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

Plaintiff (Wormser) asserts a claim for breach of the forum selection clause contained in the parties’ agreement, which requires disputes to be brought before the courts of New York City, and for attorneys’ fees incurred in the actions that defendant (L’Oréal) brought against it in New Jersey. After the New Jersey court had dismissed its complaint “with prejudice within the jurisdiction of New Jersey,” L’OrÉal commenced an action against Wormser in Supreme Court, New York County. Subsequently, a New Jersey appellate court amended the New Jersey trial court’s orders to make the dismissal “without prejudice” … , and Wormser brought this action.

Wormser’s claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ,,, ,

Wormser’s claim for attorneys’ fees may proceed, as “damages may be obtained for breach of a forum selection clause, and an award of such damages does not contravene the American rule that deems attorneys’ fees a mere incident of litigation” … . Wormser Corp. v L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: A dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination on the merits and is not therefore subject to res judicata.

Practice Point: Attorney’s fees are properly demanded as damages in an action for breach of a forum selection clause.

 

, ,

A CONTRACTOR WHICH CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAY BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant sidewalk-repair contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the contractor who repaired the sidewalk created the hole which caused plaintiff to trip. A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in a dangerous condition on a public street or sidewalk:

“A contractor may be [held] liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, Amato [the defendant contractor] failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

At his deposition, Victor Amato, Amato’s owner, testified that his company had replaced a portion of the sidewalk at the subject location.  … He acknowledged … that a two-by-four had been installed as a vertical “stake” to support a form that was used when the concrete was poured, and that he or one of his employees would have removed the stake after the concrete had set.

… [T]he plaintiff testified that she had not seen the hole because, from the direction she was walking, it was on the other side of an uneven, or sloped, portion of the sidewalk. Victor Amato admitted that this slope had been created deliberately (through a process known as “feathering”) because the new portion of the sidewalk was at a different height from the existing sidewalk. Pizzolorusso v Metro Mech., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03018, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Contactors which create a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or road may be liable to a member of the public who is injured by the dangerous condition. The theory is similar to the “launch an instrument of harm” theory of contractor liability under the Espinal case.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the releases were signed by plaintiff because of fraud, duress and/or mutual mistake. The facts are not described. Apparently plaintiff was injured at work and he alleged that he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t sign the releases:

“A release, even though properly executed, may nonetheless be void. Where fraud or duress in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied” … . Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Selina Maddock, a lawyer, was sent by their employer Navillus to secure plaintiff’s signature on the release, before he retained counsel, and made both the promise that he would have a job if he signed the releases, and the implicit threat that he would not have a job in the future if he failed to sign. He further alleged that Maddock advised plaintiff that he did not need to consult counsel and misrepresented to plaintiff that he was only releasing claims against his employer, Navillus. Consistent with this, plaintiff testified that he did not understand that he was releasing anyone besides his employer. Furthermore, “a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release”; here, while defendants argue that plaintiff is merely mistaken as to the sequelae of a known injury, plaintiff raises a factual issue as to whether the additional injuries he claims to suffer from were a sequelae of his right knee injury. Forcing a Hobbesian choice on injured workers to accept a small settlement or else lose their job before they can ascertain the nature and scope of their injury is contrary to the strong public policy of New York state to protect injured workers, as reflected in the Labor Law…. . Dolcimascolo v 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02944, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was apparently injured at work. A lawyer for his employer approached him about signing releases. Plaintiff signed, allegedly because he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t. Therefore there was a question of fact about whether fraud, duress or mutual mistake invalidated the releases.

 

,

THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraud cause of action was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and therefore should not have been dismissed:

The fraud claim is not duplicative of the contract claim … , this is not a case where “the only fraud alleged” was the defendant’s “unkept promise to perform certain of its preexisting obligations under the parties’ contract” … . Rather, plaintiff alleges, “Whenever ADP’s services for Plaintiff[] proved to be deficient, ADP would purport to deal with the problem and then misrepresent to Plaintiff[] that the problem had been fixed, when . . . it had not.” “Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … .

Moreover, plaintiff seeks at least some damages on its fraud claim that it does not seek on its contract claim … . IS Chrystie Mgt. LLC v ADP, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02950, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Fraud causes of action are often dismissed as duplicative of breach-of-contract causes of action. Here the fraud cause of action should not have been dismissed because the misrepresentations concerned present facts, not a future intent to perform. In addition, the complaint sought damages for fraud that were not sought for breach of contract.

 

, , , ,

TO FACILITATE APPELLATE REVIEW THE JUDGE WHO AWARDED PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN A DECISION EXPLAINING THE BURDENS OF PROOF AND REASONING; ISSUING ORDERS WITHOUT AN EXPLANATORY DECISION IS AN “UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE;” PLAINTIFFS DID NOT SHOW THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY REASONABLE ONE; THE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED INTENT TO BREACH THE CONTRACT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) to facilitate appellate review, the court should have written a decision explaining the burdens of proof and its reasoning in granting plaintiffs summary judgment and awarding attorney’s fees and costs; (2)  the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the contract was unambiguous and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claims; and (3) summary judgment should not have been awarded on plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action. A fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action cannot be based upon an alleged intent to breach a contract:

Although the court granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment, it failed to address the burdens of proof or any specific cause of action. In addition, the court awarded costs and attorneys’ fees without providing the basis therefor. As noted, this case involved a motion for summary judgment and for costs, attorneys’ fees, and sanctions, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice … .. To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.  …

… [P]laintiffs did not meet their initial burden on those parts of the motion seeking summary judgment … inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that their interpretation of the relevant contracts is the only reasonable interpretation thereof. …

… “[F]ar from being collateral to the contract, the purported misrepresentation was directly related to a specific provision of the contract” … .. In addition, CPLR 3016 (b) provides that, “[w]here a cause of action . . . is based upon . . . fraud, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail,” and we conclude that the cause of action here failed to satisfy that requirement … . Wilsey v 7203 Rawson Rd., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02905, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Here not only was the judge wrong to award plaintiffs summary judgment, attorney’s fees and costs on the breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation causes of act, but the judge made appellate review difficult by issuing orders without a decision explaining the burdens of proof and reasoning, characterized as an “unacceptable practice” by the Fourth Department.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE LAID AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION FOR THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE, A CONDITION PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the evidence that the bank had standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient and the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage, a condition precedent. Although the affidavit submitted by the bank laid a sufficient foundation for the business records described in the affidavit, the records themselves were not submitted:

Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissable hearsay” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Boursiquot, 2022 NY Slip Op 02782, Second Dept 4-27-22

Similar issue (failure to submit records referenced in affidavits) and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Tesoriero, 2022 NY Slip Op 02830, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Even if an affidavit lays a proper foundation for business records, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay if the records themselves are not also submitted.

 

,

THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLOSING DATE OR THE MORTGAGE TERMS; THE CONTRACT WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seller was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action for specific performance of the real estate purchase contract, because the contract did not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds:

Under the statute of frauds, a contract for the sale of real property must be evidenced by a writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[1]). The writing must “identify the parties, describe the subject matter, be signed by the party to be charged, and state all of the essential terms of an agreement” … . “In a real estate transaction, the essential terms of a contract typically include the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities” … . “‘[T]he writing must set forth the entire contract with reasonable certainty so that the substance thereof appears from the writing alone . . . If the contract is incomplete and it is necessary to resort to parol evidence to ascertain what was agreed to, the remedy of specific performance is not available'” … . …

In addition to the document not specifying the closing date, the evidence established that the parties never agreed with respect to the mortgage terms. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he was purchasing the property “subject” to the existing mortgage and that he had the “option” of obtaining a purchase money mortgage. The document, however, did not state whether the plaintiff was purchasing the property subject to the existing mortgage, obtaining a purchase money mortgage, or obtaining his own mortgage. The failure to include such terms makes the purported real estate contract unenforceable … . Cohen v Holder, 2022 NY Slip Op 02778, Second Dept 4-27-22​

Practice Point: A real estate purchase contract which does not include all the material terms is not enforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Here the contract did not include the closing date or the mortgage terms. It was deemed unenforceable and the action for specific performance was dismissed.

 

,

THE VENUE DESIGNATION IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nursing home admission agreement, signed by plaintiff’s decedent’s wife (Anderson), was not a sufficient basis for changing the venue of this action against the nursing home from plaintiff’s residence, Bronx County, to the venue designated in the admission agreement, Westchester County. The decision is comprehensive and addresses several substantive issues (agency, rights of non-signatories, for example) not summarized here:

Although the defendant submitted a copy of the admission agreement, it did not provide an affidavit from anyone who signed the agreement, who was present when it was signed, or who otherwise claimed to have personal knowledge of that agreement. The admission agreement was not signed by the plaintiff or the decedent, and it did not identify or include the names of the plaintiff or the decedent anywhere on that document. * * *

An admission agreement may be enforced against an individual where it was properly executed by that individual’s “designated representative” … . As relevant here, “[d]esignated representative shall mean the individual or individuals designated in accordance with [10 NYCRR 415.2(f)] to receive information and to assist and/or act in behalf of a particular resident to the extent permitted by State law” … . The subdivision lists three ways in which a designation may occur … .

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the defendant failed to establish that Anderson was properly designated in any of the three ways authorized by applicable law … . Sherrod v Mount Sinai St. Luke’s, 2022 NY Slip Op 02826, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In this case, the venue designation in the nursing home admission agreement, signed by plaintiff’s decedent’s wife, could not be enforced by the nursing home.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice, determined the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise that defendant could appeal from all the court’s orders. In fact, however, by pleading guilty defendant could not appeal the order rejecting his argument that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous:

We agree … with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” … , and where “a guilty plea has been induced by an unfulfilled promise, the plea must be vacated or the promise must be honored” … . Here, the court repeatedly promised defendant, who was proceeding pro se, that he would retain the right to appeal from all of its orders. The court reiterated that promise during the plea colloquy and did not advise defendant that he was forfeiting any challenge by pleading guilty. We conclude, however, that “[b]y pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his . . . contention that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous” … . Consequently, “[i]nasmuch as the record establishes that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied on a promise of the court that could not, as a matter of law, be honored, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea” … . People v Mothersell, 2022 NY Slip Op 02661, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise all the court’s orders could be appealed. In fact, the guilty plea precluded raising on appeal defendant’s contention two indictment counts were duplicitous. Even though the issue was not preserved for appeal, the Fourth Department vacated the guilty plea.

 

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