You are here: / Contract Law
, , , ,

THE STIPULATION OF DIVORCE DIVESTED THE HUSBAND OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE MARITAL PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE HUSBAND’S JUDGMENT CREDITOR COULD NOT REACH THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE HUSBAND’S NAME REMAINED ON THE DEED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of divorce awarding the marital property to the wife, Tiozzo, controlled such that the property could not be reached by the husband’s, Dangin’s, judgment creditor, Lenz. Lenz unsuccessfully argued the property was fair game because Dangin’s name remained on the deed:

The stipulation of divorce thus divested Dangin of his rights in the subject property. Under CPLR article 52 a judgment creditor may only seek to enforce its money judgment against a judgment debtor’s property. “Property” under CPLR 5201(b), whether realty or personalty, is defined broadly as an interest that is present or future, vested or contingent … . However, the determining factor as to whether a judgment debtor’s interest can constitute property vulnerable to a judgment creditor is whether it “could be assigned or transferred” (CPLR 5201[b]). In the stipulation of divorce Dangin gave up any right to assign or transfer to a third party an interest in the subject property. The subject property is therefore beyon.d the reach of Lenz … . Tiozzo v Dangin, 2021 NY Slip Op 04739, First Dept 8-19-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 77, PROPERLY RESOLVED THE DISTRIBUTION OF A $4.5 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT BY JP MORGAN CHASE IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES-RELATED ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined Supreme Court properly resolved the distribution pursuant to CPLR article 77 of a $4.5 billion global settlement payment by JPMorgan Chase to investors to be made by residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The opinion is detailed, fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here.  The rulings are specific to provisions included in or absent from the relevant pooling and servicing agreements (PSA’s). Matter of Wells Fargo Bank v Aegon USA Inv. Mgt., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 8-19-21

 

PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME ALLEGED DEFENDANT “THIRD-PARTY” BREACHED OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT CONCERNING PAYMENT OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE RESIDENT; THE NURSING HOME’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined plaintiff nursing home’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action for “breach of a contractual duty to cooperate” should have been granted. The contract at issue is the nursing home’s admission agreement, which includes obligations imposed upon defendant “third-party” in connection with paying for the costs incurred by the resident of the nursing home. The opinion is fact-specific and analyzes the breach of contract allegations as they relate to specific provisions in the admission agreement. The analysis is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The court described the salient issues as follows:

Under state and federal law, a nursing facility is prohibited from requiring a third party to guarantee the payment of a resident as a condition of the resident’s admission to the facility. As this case illustrates, however, a nursing facility is permitted to require a third party to undertake other kinds of contractual obligations, and a nursing facility may recover damages that were proximately caused by a failure of the third party to fulfil those obligations. Where it is alleged that a variety of different contractual obligations have been breached, each such theory of liability must be proved, defended, and analyzed independently. Where an admissions agreement containing pages of third-party obligations is both a requirement for admission and aggressively enforced, the fine legal distinctions between an unlawful third party guarantee and a lawful agreement laden with additional affirmative obligations may have little practical significance for the third party. This is especially true where, as here, the nursing facility’s litigation is directed solely at the third party, and recovery is not sought from the estate of the actual resident of the nursing facility. Wedgewood Care Ctr., Inc. v Kravitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 8-18-21​

 

, ,

THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff with respect to defendant M & I was valid, despite the fact that plaintiff did not understand English:

A person who does not understand the English language is not automatically excused from complying with the terms of a signed agreement, since such person must make a reasonable effort to have the agreement made clear to him or her … . Here, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff … demonstrates that the terms of the release were explained to the injured plaintiff before he executed the document … . Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that CPLR 2101(b) precluded consideration of the release. That statute provides that papers to be “served or filed shall be in the English language” and “[w]here an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate” (CPLR 2101[b]). Here, the release was written in English. Ivasyuk v Raglan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04706, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FLOODED PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE NUISANCE MAY INVOLVE INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment in this dispute about responsibility for storm water runoff which allegedly flooded plaintiff’s property. Supreme Court, however, erred in dismissing plaintiff’s negligence cause of action as duplicative of the nuisance cause of action:

The effect of defendant’s actions was to eliminate what was described as a retention pond on the cemetery land, causing the water to back up onto plaintiff’s property, which, prior to the placement of fill, had never experienced flooding. Since the fill was placed, plaintiff’s property flooded on four occasions, and plaintiff, after the first flood in February 2009, placed defendant on notice of the flood and the resulting damages and asked for its assistance to remedy the problem. Defendant denied responsibility for the flooding and took no remedial efforts to prevent further flooding. Although the causes of action for negligence and private nuisance arise out of the same undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the private nuisance claim arises solely out of the negligence claim. To the contrary, the facts as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint and bills of particulars demonstrate a viable theory of private nuisance based upon intentional conduct, i.e., that defendant eventually knew or should have known that its actions in placing the fill caused substantial interference and nevertheless continued it … . WFE Ventures, Inc. v GBD Lake Placid, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04683, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

, ,

BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant managing agent was not liable based on the terms of managing agent’s contract with the cooperative where plaintiff fell:

Where … a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question … . A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement … . …

… [T]he terms of the management agreement … established (1) that the resident manager, who was an employee of the cooperative, was responsible for supervising all personnel, including the maintenance staff, (2) that all personnel were employees of the cooperative, and (3) that all maintenance, repairs, and inspections were performed by the resident manger or members of the maintenance staff. Cacciuottolo v Brown Harris Stevens Mgt., 2021 NY Slip Op 04656, Second Dept 8-11-21​

 

, ,

THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the city was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed. A sink hole developed in front of plaintiff’s proper. The city concluded there was a leak in the water connection to plaintiff’s property and issued a violation requiring repair. Plaintiff had the area excavated and repaired the sink hole but allegedly discovered no leak. Plaintiff sued the city for the related expenses. The negligence cause of action did not fly because the city was exercising a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the city and plaintiff. However the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed:

An unjust enrichment claim is rooted in the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another” … . “To adequately plead such a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege that ‘(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … .

… [W]e find [the complaint] sufficiently alleged that the City was unjustly enriched, at the plaintiff’s expense, by the plaintiff’s excavation and repair of the public road where the sinkhole was located, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the City to retain what is sought to be recovered—i.e., the repaired road—without paying for those repairs … . The City had a duty to keep its public road in a reasonably safe condition … , and it could be unjustly enriched by being spared the expense of repairing the sinkhole in the road … . Moreover, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff only incurred fees in repairing the road because the City’s agent negligently informed her that she had to excavate the road to fix an alleged leak. This alleged benefit conferred on the City through its allegedly tortious conduct sufficiently pleads that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain the benefit … . Trenholm-Owens v City of Yonkers, 2021 NY Slip Op 04627, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

,

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS NOT ADEQUATELY WAIVED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the child support provisions of the stipulation of settlement should have been vacated because the applicability of Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) was not waived:

Parties to a separation agreement are free to “opt out” of the provisions of the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b] [hereinafter the CSSA]) “so long as their decision is made knowingly”… . To ensure that waivers of the statutory provisions of the CSSA are truly knowingly made, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(h) requires that stipulations of settlement include provisions: “(1) stating that the parties have been advised of the provisions of the CSSA; (2) stating that the basic child support provisions of the CSSA would presumptively result in the determination of the correct amount of child support to be awarded; (3) stating what the amount of basic child support would have been if calculated pursuant to the CSSA, if the parties’ stipulation or agreement deviates from the basic child support obligation; and (4) setting forth the parties’ reason or reasons for deviating from the CSSA calculation, if they have chosen to deviate” … . “The policy reasons underlying the requirement that waivers must be knowingly made are so strong that agreements that do not comply with the strictures of the CSSA are invalid and unenforceable, at least to the extent of the child support provisions set forth therein” … .

Here, the child support provisions in the parties’ stipulation of settlement did not include any of the foregoing recitals, including a calculation of basic child support pursuant to the CSSA. Haik v Haik, 2021 NY Slip Op 04599, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21

 

, , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

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