You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

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

 

, , ,

WHEN THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED BOTH TWO AND THREE-YEAR SENTENCES WERE MENTIONED; DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not clearly informed of the sentence, rendering his plea involuntary. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion, the Third Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

… [W]hen the terms of the plea agreement were placed on the record, it was stated that the prison term to be imposed would be two years. County Court then, in discussing defendant’s second felony offender status, stated that the prison term was three years but, thereafter, informed defendant that, if he violated any jail rules prior to sentencing, it would not be bound by the promise of a two-year prison term. The record does not reflect that there was any clarification or correction regarding the misstatements as to the agreed-upon sentence either during the plea colloquy or at sentencing before a three-year prison term was imposed. As “[t]he record thus fails to reveal that defendant was accurately advised of the essential terms and conditions of the plea agreement” … , we find that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. People v Lumpkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 00477, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD WITHHELD PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT AS AN OFFSET FOR THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT; THE AWARD OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A DOUBLE RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been awarded summary judgment on the liquidated damages counterclaim because defendant had withheld payment on the contract as an offset to the liquidated damages:

Supreme Court should have denied summary judgment in defendant’s favor on the liquidated damages counterclaim. To be sure, the liquidated damages provision of the contract, providing for damages of $100 for each day that plaintiff failed to timely respond to a request for repairs or to complete repairs already begun and $100 for failing to timely provide a written estimate, was not an unenforceable penalty … . However, to the extent defendant has withheld payment from plaintiff for work performed to offset liquidated damages, the award of liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery. Summit Rest. Repairs & Sales, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2022 NY Slip Op 00526, First Dept 1-27-22

 

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he record does not reflect that a copy of the endorsed note was attached to the summons and complaint when the action was commenced … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of commencement of the action … . * * *

The plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . [Plaintiff] failed to provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . For the same reason, the plaintiff failed to establish … it sent the defendant the required notice under RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Crosby, 2022 NY Slip Op 00402, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

,

PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AS THEY SOUGHT TO VACATE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSED TO THE POINT WHERE THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioners’ appeal of the denial of a declaratory judgment seeking to vacate the award of a construction contract by the Office of State Comptroller (OSC) must be dismissed as moot. The petitioners did not seek to maintain the status quo by injunction and the work had progressed too far:

… [T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” … . Where a change in circumstances involves the substantial completion of construction, “courts must consider several factors, including whether the challengers sought preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise attempted to preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation”… . Although injunctive relief is theoretically available, as a project can be dismantled, courts consider how far the work has progressed toward completion in determining mootness … . Matter of Bothar Constr., LLC v Dominguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00346, Third Dept 1-20-22

 

, ,

IN THIS ELEVATOR-ACCIDENT CASE, THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO A CONDITIONAL JUDGMENT ON CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THE ELEVATOR-MAINTENANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE PRIMARY ACTION IS DETERMINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner in this elevator accident case was entitled to a conditional judgment (pending determination of the primary action) against the elevator maintenance company (Otis) for contractual indemnification:

“A court may render a conditional judgment on the issue of indemnity pending determination of the primary action in order that the indemnitee may obtain the earliest possible determination as to the extent to which he or she may expect to be reimbursed” … . To obtain conditional relief on a claim for contractual indemnification, “the one seeking indemnity need only establish that it was free from any negligence and [may be] held liable solely by virtue of . . . statutory [or vicarious] liability” … .

… [The building-owner] defendants established their … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they did not have notice of the alleged defect in the subject elevator … , and Otis did not notify the [them] when repairs and/or maintenance was performed on the elevators in the building. Winter v ESRT Empire State Bldg., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00333, Second Dept 1-19-22

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A SUCCESSIVE AND LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff did not qualify as a third-party beneficiary of the contract entered into by defendant county. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the defendant county to make a successive and late motion for summary judgment:

… [A] subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts” … . … [T]he “Supreme Court is afforded wide latitude with respect to determining whether good cause exists for permitting late motions. It may . . . entertain belated but meritorious motions in the interest of judicial economy where the opposing party fails to demonstrate prejudice” … . …

“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” … . * * *

… [T]he County established … that the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the … contract, by showing that the plaintiff was not the only entity that could recover under the contract, and that the contract did not contain any language evincing the parties’ intent to authorize the plaintiff to enforce any obligations thereunder … . Old Crompond Rd., LLC v County of Westchester, 2022 NY Slip Op 00310, Second Dept 1-19-22​

 

,

THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED PLAINTIFF WOULD PAY DEFENDANT ABOUT $38,500 AND PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S REVENUE TOTALING ABOUT $52,500 WAS NOT A “LOAN” TO WHICH THE USURY DEFENSE COULD BE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract between plaintiff and defendant (I Do) in which plaintiff paid defendant about $38,500 in return for monthly payments from defendant’s revenue totally about $52,500 did not constitute a “loan” to which the usury defense would apply:

Unless a principal sum advanced is repayable absolutely, the transaction is not a loan. Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy” … .

… [T]he plaintiff established that the transaction set forth in the agreement was not a loan. The terms of the agreement specifically provided for adjustments to the monthly payments made by I Do to the plaintiff based on changes in I Do’s monthly sales. Concomitantly, as the amount of the monthly payments could change, the term of the agreement was not finite. Moreover, no contractual provision existed establishing that a declaration of bankruptcy would constitute an event of default … . Principis Capital, LLC v I Do, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00203, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

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