You are here: / Contract Law
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the sales counter and display unit installed on the leased premises was a permanent or trade fixture. Supreme Court had ruled the counter and display unit was a trade fixture which was properly removed by the tenant at the end of the lease:

… [T]he defendants [tenants] failed to establish as a matter of law that the sales counter and customer display unit is a trade fixture that they properly removed from the premises at the end of the lease term. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that Medi-Fair [tenant], pursuant to the express and agreed upon terms of the lease regarding the tenant fit-up, paid extra for Wallkill [landlord] to construct and install the customized sales counter and customer display unit does not, under the circumstances, make it a trade fixture as a matter of law … . Rather, read together, the articles of the lease pertaining to the tenant fit-up, alterations, and redelivery of the premises at the end of the lease term raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties intended items such as the sales counter and customer display unit annexed to the premises by Wallkill [landlord] as part of the initial, interior construction and tenant fit-up, as compared with any post-occupancy alterations and/or additions of fixtures to the premises by Medi-Fair [tenant], to be permanent fixtures of the premises. Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC v Medi-Fair, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00899, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , ,

THE FLORIDA DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED THROUGH A NATIONWIDE WEBSITE; THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS SOLICITED THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIFIC (LONG-ARM) JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case of general or specific (long-arm) jurisdiction over the Florida defendants in this breach of contract and fraud action. Through email correspondence the New York plaintiffs entered a contract for the creation of a “Dating App” for which plaintiffs allegedly paid $100,000. Plaintiff alleged defendants never provided the Dating App and sued in New York. The jurisdiction over the breach of contract action was analyzed under the general jurisdiction criteria, and jurisdiction over the fraud (tort) action was analyzed under the specific jurisdiction (long-arm) criteria:

In opposing the separate motions of [defendants], the plaintiffs asserted that jurisdiction over both defendants was proper pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302(a)(1) and (3). “Under modern jurisprudence, a court may assert general all-purpose jurisdiction or specific conduct-linked jurisdiction over a particular defendant”… . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they did not make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction … . The complaint itself establishes that [the individual defendant] is domiciled in Florida and that [the corporate defendant] was incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Florida … . Further, the facts alleged, even if established, do not support a conclusion that [defendant corporation’s] contacts with New York were so “continuous and systematic” …  as to render it “essentially at home” in New York … .

Specific jurisdiction over a defendant is obtained through New York’s long-arm statute, CPLR 302. * * *

“The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . …

The affidavits … establish that [the corporate defendant] advertises its services nationwide through a website that is not specifically directed toward New York residents or businesses. It is undisputed that the plaintiff … initiated the contact between the parties and solicited the defendants’ services in designing the Dating App. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, [the corporate defendant’s] website does not constitute transacting business within the State. Fanelli v Latman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove standing to bring the action and compliance with the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

… [T}he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendant prior to the commencement of this action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, although Victoria Wolff, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff, stated in an affidavit that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, she did not aver that she had mailed the notices herself or otherwise claim to have personal knowledge of the mailing … . Raymond James Bank, NA v Guzzetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not support a cause of action for fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff ordered an artistic silk floral display but rejected it when delivered on the ground the display did not match what plaintiff ordered. Defendants refused to refund the money. Although the inadequacy of the fraud in the inducement allegations was first raised in reply, the First Department considered it because it was determinative, did not allege new facts and could not have been avoided if raised below:

As for the fraud in the inducement claim, defendants challenged this claim in their reply brief in Supreme Court. While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered … , this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants’ moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue … . Here, plaintiff merely alleged that defendants “grossly misrepresented the quality and nature of the Decorations” to induce plaintiff into retaining them and compensating them, and the representations were false when made. This simply alleges “an insincere promise of future performance under the contract, which is insufficient to plead fraud” … . As such, the fraud in the inducement claim is dismissed. Newport E. Inc. v Sviba Floral Decorators, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00819, First Dept 2-8-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POSTING OF AN UNDERTAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although the preliminary injunction in this breach of contract action was properly imposed, Supreme Court should have provided for an undertaking:

… [T]he court erred in granting the preliminary injunction without providing for an undertaking. With certain exceptions that are not applicable here, prior to the court granting a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court (see CPLR 6312 [b] … ), and that requirement may not be waived … . TDA, LLC v Lacey, 2022 NY Slip Op 00779. Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller which is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. determined plaintiff police officer was properly subjected to disciplinary charges brought by the town and was not entitled to all the retiree benefits set forth in the collective bargaining agreement:

We are called upon in this case to navigate the interplay between various forms of equitable relief grounded in common law doctrine, principles of modern practice under CPLR article 78 and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and certain state-level policies regarding the right to collective bargaining and the authority of public officials over law enforcement. These issues have been raised as a result of the plaintiff’s complaint, the central aim of which is to prevent the plaintiff’s employer from holding him accountable for the serious disciplinary infractions that he allegedly committed in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the equitable powers and legal doctrines that he seeks to invoke in this litigation do not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Murray v Town of N. Castle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00675, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied making this dental malpractice action timely; and (2) plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant dentist (Irlin) should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her current treating dentist, who opined that the plaintiff initially sought treatment from Irlin in order to obtain a permanent prosthetic replacement for the missing teeth in her upper jaw. The plaintiff’s dentist further opined that the numerous surgeries that the plaintiff underwent on her upper jaw to repair and replace implants and prostheses were related to Irlin’s initial alleged malpractice in failing to diagnose the bone condition that caused the implants and prostheses to become loose and need replacement. The record otherwise presents questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff timely initiated return visits to complain and seek corrective treatment from Irlin … . …

… [T]he individual defendants’ own submissions, which included the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and numerous signed consent forms written in English, demonstrated that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against Irlin. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she agreed to the installation of dental implants and a permanent prosthetic device in her upper jaw because Irlin verbally promised her that it would “last a lifetime,” that she would “treat [the prosthesis] as if” it was her “own teeth,” and that she would only need follow-up appointments for cleanings once every 6 to 12 months, among other things. The individual defendants’ evidence could support the conclusion that the treatment Irlin rendered did not achieve these allegedly promised results. Chvetsova v Family Smile Dental, 2022 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FINE WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the imposition of a fine was not part of the plea agreement and vacated that part of the sentence:

Defendant’s … contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is actually a contention that County Court erred in imposing a $1,000 fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to object to the imposition of the fine or by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see id.), we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] …). … [T]he court improperly enhanced defendant’s sentence by imposing “a fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement” … . … [W]e conclude that it is “appropriate to vacate the provision of the defendant’s sentence imposing a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty” … . People v Wilson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00593, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant may have pled guilty and accepted a 16-year sentence in Monroe County because he was already serving a 14-24 year sentence for another offense in Ontario County. Subsequently, on appeal, the Fourth Department reduced the Ontario County sentence to four years:

“The critical question is whether the removal or reduction of the preexisting sentence nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” … . Here, when defendant pleaded guilty in Monroe County, the court expressly informed him that the aggregate 16-year term of imprisonment would run concurrently with the aggregate 14-to-24-year term already imposed in Ontario County, and thus the plea would result in no or relatively little additional prison time … . Once the Ontario County sentence was reduced as a result of our determination on the prior appeal to a term of four years, defendant lost the benefit previously conferred by the concurrent nature of the Monroe County plea, and “we cannot say defendant would have accepted the plea bargain . . . had it not been for his [14-to-24]-year sentence in the [Ontario County] case, now reduced to [four years]” … . People v Ringrose, 2022 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an employment contract between plaintiff and defendant, which included a covenant not to compete, was not entwined with the separate sales agreement in which defendant promised to pay $200,000 for plaintiff’s business. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the sales contract because defendant defaulted after making the first payment:

“Generally, breach of a related contract will not in the ordinary course defeat summary judgment on [a promissory] note[]” … . Nonetheless, that “rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined” and inseparable … . Whether two agreements are inextricably intertwined is a question of law for the court to decide because it involves a matter of contract interpretation … .

Here, the sales contract and employment agreement are not inextricably intertwined such that plaintiff’s purported breach of the noncompetition covenants in the latter constitute a defense to defendant’s default on the promissory note … . Saulsbury v Durfee, 2022 NY Slip Op 00566, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

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