You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

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

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS WAS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an email sent by plaintiff’s attorney constituted an enforceable stipulation of settlement, despite the fact that plaintiff subsequently refused to execute the documents:

… [T]he requirements for a valid and enforceable settlement agreement are satisfied here. The email from plaintiff’s lawyer to defendant’s lawyer contained the only two material terms of the agreement, i.e., defendant’s payment of $32,500 to plaintiff in exchange for plaintiff’s release of defendant from further liability; the email plainly manifested the parties’ mutual accord, i.e., “[plaintiff] has informed me that he would like to accept the $32,500 settlement [offered by defendant]”; and the lawyer representing the party to be bound, i.e., plaintiff, explicitly typed his name at the end of the email in a manner akin to a hand-signed letter. Nothing more was required, and plaintiff’s “subsequent refusal to execute form releases and a stipulation of discontinuance did not invalidate the agreement” … . To the contrary, plaintiff’s subsequent refusal to execute the necessary releases and stipulation constituted a breach of the parties’ valid settlement agreement. The court thus erred in denying defendant’s cross motion to enforce the settlement agreement … . Field v Pet Haven, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04450, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

ONCE PLAINTIFF ACCELERATED THE DEBT BY COMMENCING FORECLOSURE DEFENDANTS COULD EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THE MORTGAGE WITHOUT TRIGGERING A CONTRACTUAL PREPAYMENT PENALTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled defendants could exercise their right of redemption in this foreclosure action without triggering the plaintiff’s contractual right to withhold consent to prepayment:

… [D]efendants were not seeking to prepay the amount due under the note, rather plaintiff accelerated the remaining amount due by instituting a foreclosure action and sending the demand letter.

We … reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to the remaining amount due on the note, including all unaccrued interest payments. It is well settled that, once a foreclosure proceeding is commenced, “[a] mortgagor or other owner of the equity of redemption of a property subject to a judgment of foreclosure and sale may redeem the mortgage at any time prior to the foreclosure sale” … . “An unconditional tender of the full amount due is all that is required” to exercise the right of redemption … . Thus, defendants’ tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal and the accrued interest was all that was required “in response to [plaintiff’s] acceleration of the debt upon default [and, as noted,] did not constitute a ‘prepayment’ of the debt within the meaning of the prepayment clause set forth in the mortgage” … . Inasmuch as “the accelerated payment here is the result of plaintiff[-]mortgagee[] having elected to bring this foreclosure action, [he] may not exact a prepayment penalty” … . Virkler v V.S. Virkler & Son, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04434, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND “WILLFUL” BREACHES, THE FACT THAT THE BREACH MAY HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE DID NOT RENDER THE BREACH “WILLFUL,” WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO REFER TO “TRULY HARMFUL, CULPABLE CONDUCT;” SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the term “willful” in the context of the damages provision of the contract should not be interpreted simply to mean “deliberate,” but rather to refer to “truly culpable, harmful conduct.” Therefore the damages cap for nonwillful breaches applied:

In the context of this contract, the term “willful” must be understood to be “truly culpable, harmful conduct” … and not … “merely intentional nonperformance” … . As the Court of Appeals noted … , “[g]enerally in the law of contract damages, as contrasted with damages in tort, whether the breaching party deliberately rather than inadvertently failed to perform contractual obligations should not affect the measure of damages” and “[t]he policy which runs through the fabric of the law of contracts is to bind a party by what he agrees to do whether or not he intends to do what he agrees” … . The last clause in the limitation-of-liability provision refers to special damages in the context of breaches caused willfully or by gross negligence. Thus,”[u]nder the interpretation tool of ejusdem generis applicable to contracts as well as statutes, the phrase ‘willful acts’ [or ’caused willfully’ … ] should be interpreted here as referring to conduct similar in nature to the . . . ‘gross negligence’ with which it was joined . . .” … . MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v Axos Bank, 2021 NY Slip Op 04414, First Dept 7-15-21

 

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