You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

THE CITY FIREFIGHTERS WHO, AS ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES, WERE REQUIRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO WORK DURING THE PANDEMIC, SOUGHT TIME-OFF OR MONETARY COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE TIME-OFF AFFORDED THE NONESSENTIAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE SENT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO THE SAME THE EXECUTIVE ORDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED ARBITRATION OF THE ISSUE WAS PRECLUDED BY PUBLIC POLICY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city firefighters’ claim to entitlement to time off from work or monetary compensation equivalent to the time-off afforded the civilian employees ordered to stay home (due to COVID) was prohibited by public policy. The firefighters were deemed essential employees and were required to report to work by Executive Order. The “nonessential” civilian employees were ordered to stay home by the same Executive Order:

… [W]e cannot agree that petitioner breached the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] by responsibly implementing the Governor’s directives. To hold otherwise would create an untenable result — i.e., it would sanction a finding that petitioner breached the CBA based upon its required compliance with state public policy. Based on the very nature of the pandemic, requiring extreme public health measures as implemented through the executive orders, we conclude that arbitration of the resulting impact on respondent’s members is precluded as a matter of public policy. Matter of City of Troy (Troy Uniformed Firefighters Assn., Local 86 IAFF, AFL-CIO), 2022 NY Slip Op 02174, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here is a rare example of the preclusion of the arbitration of an employment issue by public policy. The firefighters were ordered to work during COVID as essential employees. The nonessential civilian employees were ordered to stay home. Public policy prohibited arbitration of the question whether the firefighters were entitled to equivalent time-off or monetary compensation.

 

PLAINTIFF AGREED TO PROVIDE POURED, NOT PUMPED, CONCRETE AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF TACTILE STRIPS FROM THE SUBCONTRACT; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF PROVIDE PUMPED CONCRETE AND INSTALL TACTILE STRIPS; THESE CHANGES WERE MATERIAL BUT NOT “CARDINAL” SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF’S PERFORMANCE WAS EXCUSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s (Banton’s) requested changes to the contract were not a “cardinal changes” such that Banton breached the contract. The plaintiff, pursuant the subcontract, provided concrete for the construction project. The original subcontract indicated plaintiff would “pour” not “pump” the concrete and would not install “tactile strips.” Subsequently, Banton requested that the concrete be pumped and that tactile strips be installed. The parties then agreed to proceed with those changes:

Supreme Court found that Banton’s request to modify the concrete delivery method from pouring to pumping, in light of the express subcontract exclusion, was a material change to the scope of plaintiff’s work under the agreement. Although we agree with the court that this was a material change, we do not find it to be a cardinal change such that Banton can be found to have breached the contract … . A cardinal change is one that affects “‘the essential identity or main purpose of the contract,’ such that it ‘constitutes a new undertaking'” … . The main purpose of this subcontract was to complete the concrete work for the project, and we do not find that the changes in the work requested by Banton fundamentally changed this purpose so as to constitute a cardinal change that would relieve plaintiff of its obligation to perform under the subcontract … . This conclusion is further supported by the fact that plaintiff was ready, willing and able to implement these changes and continue to perform under the subcontract, but only if its price was met. McCarthy Concrete, Inc. v Banton Constr. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02168, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here it was determined that the changes to the subcontract requested by the defendant were “material” but they were not “cardinal” such that plaintiff’s performance was excused. Plaintiff had specifically excluded “pumped,” as opposed to “poured,” concrete and the installation of tactile strips from the subcontract. Defendant subsequently requested “pumped” concrete and the installation of tactile strips. Essentially the parties agreed to proceed with the changes. Supreme Court should not have held plaintiff was not obligated to perform.

, , ,

PLAINTIFF COUNTY, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE NURSING HOME WHERE DECEDENT WAS CARED FOR, WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF DECEDENT’S TAX RETURNS; THE RETURNS ARE RELEVANT TO WHETHER DECEDENT’S SON BREACHED THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY AGREEMENT” WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO USE THE DECEDENT’S INCOME TO PAY THE NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, plaintiff county (on behalf of the nursing home where decedent was cared for) was entitled to disclosure of decedent’s tax returns in this action against decedent’s son. The action alleged the son breached the “responsible party agreement” in which the son agreed to pay the decedent’s nursing home costs from the decedent’s income and resources:

Unlike a typical action where the assets of a defendant are irrelevant unless and until a judgment is obtained, here … the existence and value of decedent’s assets are critical to the issue of whether Jeffrey Garry [decedent’s son] breached the agreement by failing to use such assets to pay for decedent’s care … . …

Although “tax returns are generally not discoverable unless the party seeking them shows that they are relevant to issues in the case, indispensable to the claim and unavailable from other sources” … , we are satisfied that plaintiff made the requisite showing here, particularly given defendants’ reluctance to produce responsive documents or interrogatory responses that may have otherwise provided information contained in decedent’s tax returns … . County of Warren v Swan, 2022 NY Slip Op 02169, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Although tax returns are generally not discoverable until a judgment is obtained, here the decedent’s returns were deemed relevant to whether decedent’s son breached the “responsible party agreement” with the nursing home which cared for decedent. The agreement required decedent’s son to pay the nursing home from decedent’s income and resources.

 

,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ENTERED A POSTADOPTION CONTACT AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWED TWO SUPERVISED VISITS WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER PER YEAR; THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR AFTER VISITING WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER SUPPORTED FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSION IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO TERMINATE VISITATION WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF THE DAUGHTER’S, IN CONTRAST TO THE SON’S, POST-VISIT BEHAVIOR DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF VISITATION WITH THE DAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined Family Court properly terminated the biological mother’s visitation with her children who had been adopted. The biological mother and the adoptive mother had entered a postadoption contact agreement which allowed the biological mother two supervised visits per year with her son and daughter. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the son’s behavior changed drastically after visits. His behavior was characterized as “out of control.” There was evidence the daughter began banging her head and had nightmares after a visit. The dissent argued the evidence supported termination of visits with the son, but did not support the termination of visits with the daughter:

The adoptive mother testified that after visiting the biological mother in December 2017, the son destroyed rooms in the house and was completely out of control for close to a month. After the July 2018 visit with the biological mother, the son “climb[ed] the walls in [his] classroom,” hit his friend, hurt his sister and had difficulties regulating his behavior for several months. * * *

With respect to the dissent’s reference to the policy concerns underlying postadoption contact agreements, we note that we wholeheartedly embrace and promote the policies and goals of these types of agreements and encourage open adoptions. However, it is not our intention to address the underlying policies of postadoption contact agreements, but, instead, to focus solely upon the principle governing and guiding the initiation and continuation of open contact between the children and the biological parent — the best interests of the children. Here, it is uncontroverted that the daughter displayed a persistent pattern of bizarre and harmful behavior — head banging and disrupted sleep due to nightmares — commensurate with visits with her biological mother. These behaviors continued for 1½ years. Although the daughter did not display the behaviors at the time of the visits, a time when the adoptive parents were present and the daughter’s attention was directed toward other activities, the behaviors were manifested subsequent to each visit. … [W]e cannot agree that enforcing visitation with respect to one sibling but not the other serves the best interests of either. Matter of Jennifer JJ. v Jessica JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02043, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The postadoption contact agreement allowing the biological mother to visit her children after adoption was properly terminated by the court because the evidence of the children’s post-visit behavior supported the conclusion continued visitation was not in the best interests of the children.

 

,

THE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS NO SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY JUSTIFIED THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer (Union Mutual) was entitled to rescission of the insurance policy based upon a material misrepresentation made by the plaintiff (the insured). The plaintiff-insured represented that there was no swimming pool on the property. After the property was damaged by fire, the insurer learned there was a swimming pool on the property and disclaimed coverage:

… Union Mutual established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff made misrepresentations on his application for insurance, and that it would not have issued the 2017 policy and the 2018 policy had the plaintiff disclosed that there was a swimming pool on the property … .. Union Mutual submitted with its motion for summary judgment an affidavit from its underwriter, along with Union Mutual’s Underwriting Guidelines for its New York Landlord/Tenant Property and General Liability Package Program, which provide that swimming pools are an unacceptable risk, and if a potential insured answered “yes” to the question on the application asking if there is a swimming pool on the property, no policy of insurance would issue. With these undisputed facts, Union Mutual demonstrated as a matter of law that the misrepresentations in the plaintiff’s applications for insurance were material. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

A material misrepresentation, even if innocent or unintentional, is sufficient to warrant rescission of an insurance policy … . Nabatov v Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02005, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here the insured represented to the insurer that there was no swimming pool on the property. After a fire the insurer learned there was a swimming pool on the property. The insurer demonstrated it would not have issued the policy if it had been aware of the swimming pool. The misrepresentation was therefore “material” and justified the denial of coverage for the fire.

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE FAILURE TO ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, AS WELL AS THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF MAILING, RENDERED THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-default provisions of the mortgage in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it complied with the notice of default provisions of the mortgage, which … required the plaintiff to send the notice by first-class mail to the subject property and to provide a 30-day cure period. Copies of the notice without proof of mailing, along with the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer averring, based upon her review of unspecified business records which were not attached to the affidavit, that such a notice of default was sent on an unspecified date, was insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .Bank of Am., N.A. v Shirazi, 2022 NY Slip Op 01984, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Although most foreclosure-reversals are due to the bank’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, here the bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-default provisions in the mortgage document.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs, apparently represented by defendant attorneys, brought a 2010 action for breach of a condominium-sale contract which was dismissed on statute of frauds grounds (no written contract). When the written contract for the condominium sale surfaced, the defendants did not move to renew, vacate or appeal the order:

Regardless of whether the dismissal on statute of frauds grounds was ultimately correct, defendants should have known that the condominium claims, which involved the sale of real property, would be subject to the statute of frauds and thus would require reference to a written contract (General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]); that the statute of frauds could be raised and adjudicated on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5); and that a dismissal under the statute of frauds would be on the merits, thus precluding any future claim for damages on the sale of the condominium … . As a result, with respect to the condominium sale, it cannot be determined as a matter of law that plaintiffs failed to plead a claim for legal malpractice based upon defendants’ actions in litigating the breach of contract claim. Komolov v Popik, 2022 NY Slip Op 01966, First Dept 3-22-22

Practice Point: The defendant attorneys apparently represented plaintiffs in their 2010 action for breach of a condominium-sale contract. The 2010 action was dismissed on statute of frauds grounds. Subsequently a written contract surfaced and defendant attorneys did not move to renew, vacate or appeal the order. Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF BY REMOVING FIVE VIDEOS POSTED BY PLAINTIFF CLAIMING CHILDHOOD VACCINATION LEADS TO AUTISM; THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AUTHORIZES INTERNET PROVIDERS TO REMOVE “OBJECTIONABLE” MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined defendant video-hosting service, Vimeo, did not breach its contract with plaintiff by removing five videos posted by plaintiff which Vimeo concluded made false or misleading claims about vaccine safety. The videos claimed that childhood vaccines lead to autism:

This appeal concerns whether a video-hosting service may be held liable for its decision to remove videos that it determines violate its terms of service. Defendant Vimeo, Inc. prohibits users from posting videos that make false or misleading claims about vaccine safety. It removed five videos, posted by a commercial user, because the videos claimed that childhood vaccination leads to autism. The user sued, claiming that Vimeo had breached the parties’ contract. The motion court held that liability was precluded by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We agree. Section 230 prevents lawsuits against Internet service providers for their good-faith decisions to remove content that they consider objectionable. If service providers had to justify those decisions in court, or if plaintiffs could circumvent immunity through unsupported accusations of bad faith, section 230 would be a dead letter. This is as true for commercial users as for any other plaintiff. Therefore, we affirm dismissal of the complaint.

… [S]ection 230(c)(2) prohibits holding an interactive computer service provider liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider . . . considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” (47 USC § 230[c][2][A]). Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v Vimeo, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01978, First Dept 3-22-22

Practice Point: The Communications Decency Act allows Internet providers to take down posted material the providers deem “objectionable.” Here a video-hosting service, Vimeo, took down five videos posted by plaintiff which claimed childhood vaccination leads to autism. Plaintiff’s breach of contract action was dismissed.

 

,

THE “SOLE REMEDY REPURCHASE PROTOCOL” IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE REQUIRES NOTICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFECTIVE LOAN BEFORE THE DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO REPURCHASE IT; OF THE 783 NONCONFORMING LOANS, 480 WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPURCHASE THE UNIDENTIFIED LOANS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive partial dissent, determined that the “sole remedy repurchase protocol” contract provision of the residential-mortgage-backed-securities agreements requires notice of each defective loan before the obligation to repurchase is triggered:

Pursuant to the pooling and service agreement (PSA) establishing the trust, [defendant] DLJ made certain representations and warranties, including that each loan was underwritten in accordance with the originators’ underwriting standards and applicable law, that certain provided documentation was true and accurate, and that none of the loans were “high cost” or “predatory.” … [T]he PSA contains a “sole remedy” provision granting U.S. Bank, as trustee, the limited authority to seek a remedy for any breach by DLJ of these representations and warranties through a contractually established “repurchase protocol” requiring DLJ to cure, repurchase, or substitute a nonconforming mortgage loan within 90 days of notice or independent discovery of such breaching loan. * * *

… [T]he trustee’s expert reviewed 1,059 of the loans in the trust—including both previously noticed and unnoticed loans—and identified 783 allegedly nonconforming loans. Only 303 of these loans had been specifically identified by the trustee in its pre-suit letters; the remaining 480 loans were not listed in the schedules of breaching loans provided to DLJ prior to commencement of the action. * * *

A simple reading of the [agreement] demonstrates that the trustee’s assertion that loan-specific notice is not required is inconsistent with the contractual language of the repurchase protocol. The parties structured the repurchase protocol entirely through the lens of individual “mortgage loans”—clearly contemplating a loan-by-loan approach to the agreed-upon sole remedy for breach. U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01866, Ct App 3-17-22

Practice Point: The plain language of a contract will be enforced. Here in this residential mortgage-backed securities case, under the terms of the contract, the defendant was not required to repurchase nonconforming loans about which it was not specifically notified. Of the 783 allegedly nonconforming loans, defendant was specifically notified of only 303.

 

, ,

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue which must be determined by the court, not the arbitrator:

… [T]he petitioners raised a threshold issue regarding the validity of the purported agreement to arbitrate, as they contended that they did not sign, and that neither Graves nor AMF had the authority to sign, any contract on their behalf concerning the purported transaction involving the respondents. Thus, this threshold issue was for the Supreme Court, rather than an arbitrator, to determine … . Matter of Northeast & Cent. Contrs., Inc. v Quanto Capital, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01791, Second Dept 3-16-22

 

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