You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

THE CLASS—LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY POWER OUTAGES CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY—SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the class, Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) customers affected by Hurricane-Sandy power outages, should not have been certified:

The plaintiffs base their claims against LIPA on an allegation that LIPA failed to fulfill its promise, made in 2006, that it would spend $25 million annually on a 20-year “storm hardening” project (i.e., $500 million total) intended to render its electric system more durable and resilient in the face of major storms. …

… [T]o establish liability, the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that, had LIPA performed storm hardening work consistent with its promise, their outages would have been shortened or avoided. This is, as LIPA argues, a fact-driven inquiry which is both speculative and hopelessly individual since it would require the factfinder to determine not only what should have been completed … , but also to speculate whether that work, had it been performed, would have prevented or shortened individual class members’ outages. * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court should also have denied class certification on the basis that the plaintiffs cannot state a viable cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract … . Matter of Long Is. Power Auth. Hurricane Sandy Litig. v Long Is. Power Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 07545, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action that did not require plaintiff’s innocence in a criminal matter were time barred. Plaintiff was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation she appropriated life insurance proceeds which were due to other beneficiaries. Plaintiff then sued two insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty. None of those causes of action accrued upon plaintiff’s acquittal. All were therefore time-barred:

Contrary to … the court’s conclusion, those causes of action did not accrue at the time the criminal proceeding terminated. The termination of a criminal proceeding is relevant for claims for malicious prosecution and legal malpractice arising out of a criminal proceeding … . For those claims, a plaintiff is required to make a showing of innocence, and thus the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff can assert the element of his or her innocence on the criminal charges … . Plaintiff here does not need to assert her innocence on the criminal charges as an element of the causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty … . Morrow v Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. of NY, 2021 NY Slip Op 07373, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

RESCISSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE THE PARTIES CANNOT BE RETURNED TO THE STATUS QUO; A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED IF DAMAGES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims for rescission and breach of contract should not have been granted. Rescission is only appropriate when the parties to a contract can be returned to the status quo, not the case here. And a breach of contract action must be supported by damages, which were not established here:

A claim for rescission, as opposed to a claim for breach of contract, seeks to ” ‘restore the parties to status quo,’ ” as if the parties had never entered into the contract … . Rescission sounds in equity … , and is appropriate only where, among other things, the status quo can be ” ‘substantially restored’ ” … . In this case, rescission is unavailable because the status quo cannot be substantially restored. Here, “the assimilation of plaintiff’s company [into defendant’s business is] complete,” and events have rendered the status quo practically impossible to recreate … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting judgment to defendant on his two counterclaims for breach of contract. Damages are an element of a claim for breach of contract … and, here, defendant’s counterclaims for breach of contract should have been dismissed upon the court’s determination that defendant failed to establish damages … . Unger v Ganci, 2021 NY Slip Op 07366, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE AFTER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE INJURED PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the subrogation action by plaintiff-insurer of the property owner, 60 LBC, in this slip and fall case was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

The court determined that plaintiff is barred by res judicata from pursuing 60 LBC’s [the property owner’s] coverage claim against defendant [the insurer of the landscaping business hired by 60 LBC to remove ice and snow] because it was resolved in the global settlement [with the injured party] reached during mediation. We disagree. Defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] was not a party to the underlying personal injury action or the third-party action, and the release resulting from the settlement of those actions makes no mention of any claims directly against defendant by 60 LBC or anyone else. Nor does the stipulation of discontinuance. The breach of contract claim asserted by 60 LBC against Red Cedar [the landscaping company] in the third-party action is separate and distinct from plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action against defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] here. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v Acadia Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 07351, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY DEMONSTRATED THE RETAINER AGREEMENT IN THE DRUNK-DRIVING AND VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CASE WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY UNCONSCIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-attorney’s motion for summary judgment on the “unconscionable retainer agreement” cause of action should have been granted:

… [D]efendant met his initial burden on the motion by establishing that the retainer agreement is not procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which defendant submitted in support of the motion, demonstrated that plaintiff had ample opportunity to become fully informed about the retainer agreement and to make a meaningful choice about representation. Plaintiff did not dispute in his deposition that, as defendant averred, defendant previously represented plaintiff in relation to a charge of driving while intoxicated for which a similar fixed-fee retainer agreement was used. Indeed, plaintiff admitted that defendant previously represented him at least once. Defendant’s submissions on the motion also established that the retainer agreement here was not presented to plaintiff until nine days after the drunk-driving incident giving rise to the criminal charges against him and several days after plaintiff had been released from the hospital. By that time, plaintiff had been arraigned on the felony complaint, and therefore was aware of the charges of aggravated vehicular homicide against him for the deaths of two persons. Before signing the retainer agreement, plaintiff’s family had contacted at least one other attorney on plaintiff’s behalf, and plaintiff negotiated terms of the agreement with defendant. Furthermore, although defendant submitted plaintiff’s interrogatory answers in which plaintiff stated that he relied on defendant’s statements that defendant had never had a client go to prison and that he would work on plaintiff’s case “24/7,” plaintiff conceded during his deposition that defendant never guaranteed that he would avoid prison and that plaintiff understood defendant’s statements regarding the amount of time defendant would spend on plaintiff’s case to be hyperbole. Divito v Fiandach, 2021 NY Slip Op 07350, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the calculation of the arrearages for plaintiff’s potion of defendant’s pension was restricted by the six-year statute of limitations for contact actions. The stipulation of settlement, which is the basis for plaintiff’s right to a portion of the pension, was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce such that a breach of the stipulation is a breach of contract:

It is well settled that “[a] stipulation of settlement that is incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation” … , and an action seeking money damages for violation of a separation agreement is subject to the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions … . Contrary to the court’s determination, it is irrelevant that plaintiff sought the arrearages by way of motion rather than by commencement of a plenary action. Although motions to enforce the terms of a stipulation are not subject to the statute of limitations … , in this case plaintiff was seeking arrearages, or money damages, for the amounts that she did not receive because the QDRO was never received by Niagara Mohawk. When a party is seeking arrearages or a money judgment, the statute of limitations applies whether a party commences a plenary action … or, as here, simply moves for that relief … .

Thus, we conclude that plaintiff’s claim is timely only to the extent that she seeks her share of pension payments made within six years prior to her motion filed on July 29, 2019. Mussmacher v Mussmacher, 2021 NY Slip Op 07413, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined: (1) Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 236 (B) (3), the acknowledgment of signatures on a nuptial agreement must be contemporaneous, but not necessarily simultaneous, with the signing: and (2) if the signing is contemporaneous, but the acknowledgment is defective, the nuptial agreement remains enforceable. Here, in the Anderson case, the husband’s signature was not acknowledged until seven years after the signing (shortly before filing for divorce). In that circumstance the agreement would have to be reaffirmed to be enforceable. In the Koegel case, the lawyers’ acknowledgments failed indicate the undisputed fact that the signers were personally known to them. The defect in the acknowledgments did not affect the validity of the agreement and there was no need for reaffirmation:

[Re: Anderson:] A document that depends on an untimely acknowledgment is the legal and functional equivalent of an unacknowledged document. However, in a case involving such a document, the parties are not without a remedy. When there is an excessive delay rendering an acknowledgment ineffective and the agreement therefore unenforceable, the parties are free to reaffirm their agreement, again based on the information available to them at that time. To comply with DRL § 236 (B) (3), reaffirmation would require that both parties must again sign and acknowledge the agreement. The rule thus places the parties on a fair and equal footing in deciding whether to be bound by the agreement—either initially or at some future date if the agreement is unenforceable because of the delay. * * *

[Re: Koegel:] We … hold that the defect … presented in this appeal may be overcome with adequate evidence that the statutory requirements were met, even if the acknowledgment is not properly documented in the first instance. This limited remedy avoids invalidating a nuptial agreement when the parties have done all that the DRL requires of them. In other words, the signature and acknowledgment may satisfy the statutory mandates if extrinsic evidence supports “that the acknowledgment was properly made in the first instance” even if the certificate fails to “include the proper language” due to the notary’s or other official’s error … . Anderson v Anderson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07058, CtApp 12-16-21

 

, , ,

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff police officer and defendant police were co-employees pursuant a Police Mutual Aid Agreement between two municipalities, the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia. Plaintiff, a Glenville police officer, alleged defendant , a Scotia police officer, was negligent in firing her weapon at a suspect, thereby causing a bullet to strike plaintiff. Because the plaintiff and defendant were deemed co-employees pursuant to the agreement, General Obligations Law 11-106 prohibited plaintiff from suing in negligence:

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, a police officer may now assert a cause of action sounding in negligence “for injuries suffered while in the line of duty against entities other than municipal employers and fellow workers” … . The issue thus boils down to whether plaintiff and Peck [defendant] were acting as coemployees at the time of the incident, which would bar plaintiff’s action. Based primarily upon the operative provisions of the Agreement, we find that they were coemployees on the night of the incident, thereby insulating defendants from liability. Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 2021 NY Slip Op 06895, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

, , ,

CUSTODY MATTERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, DESPITE A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) despite the stipulation calling for arbitration, custody matters are not subject to arbitration; and (2) upon remittal the court must determine whether New York has jurisdiction and, if so, whether New York is an inconvenient forum. Plaintiff is a citizen of the US and defendant is a citizen of Israel. The parties lived together in New York:

The Supreme Court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the parties’ custody/parental access disputes on the basis that their stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, contained an arbitration clause … . “Disputes concerning child custody and visitation are not subject to arbitration as ‘the court’s role as parens patriae must not be usurped'” … .

Moreover, since the Supreme Court has made previous custody determinations concerning the parties’ children, the court, prior to determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, must first determine whether the defendant and the children have a significant connection with New York and whether there is substantial evidence in New York … . … If, upon remittal, the court determines … that it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody and parental access issues, it may exercise that jurisdiction, or it may decline to do so if it determines … that New York is an inconvenient forum … . Matsui v Matsui, 2021 NY Slip Op 06843, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

, ,

THE INSURED, SPACE NEEDLE, LLC, IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON STATE; ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY NAMED NEW YORK AS THE FORUM AND REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK LAW FOR ANY LAWSUITS, THE WASHINGTON INSURANCE CODE RENDERED SUCH PROVISIONS VOID; THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ANTI-SUIT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department determined plaintiff Elite Insurance Company did not demonstrate a likelihood of success or a balancing of the equities in its favor in its attempt to have a preliminary injunction issued in New York to prevent a suit by the insured, Space Needle of Seattle, Washington, after the COVID-related business-loss claim was denied: Although the insurance contract indicated New York would be the forum and New York law would apply, the Washington Insurance Code rendered such provisions void. The decision includes extensive discussions of the leading cases in these areas:

… [P]laintiff did not demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for an anti-suit injunction based on the contractual choice-of-law and forum selection clauses of the parties’ insurance contract, or a balancing of the equities in its favor. As an insurance company authorized to sell insurance in Washington, plaintiff was required to comply with the Washington Insurance Code’s prohibition against choice-of-law and forum selection clauses in insurance policies sold in Washington (Wash Rev Code Chapter 48). The Code (RCW) expressly provides that no insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this state (Washington) . . . “shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement (a) requiring it to be construed according to the laws of any other state or country. . .; or (b) depriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction of action against the insurer . . .” (RCW 48.18.200 [1]). RCW further specifies that any such agreement violating this prohibition “shall be void, but such voiding shall not affect the validity of the other provisions of the contract” (RCW 48.18.200 [2]). Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the equities tip in its favor where it is attempting, as Supreme Court stated, “a blatant end run around” Washington’s prohibition against choice-of-law and forum selection clauses. North Am. Elite Ins. Co. v Space Needle, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06769, First Dept 12-2-21

 

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