Contract Law – Page 49 – New York Appellate Digest

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor

THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the full amount of the note could not be recovered because it did not include an acceleration clause. In addition, claims for unpaid installments due more than six years before the filing of the lawsuit were time-barred:

“As a general rule, in the absence of an acceleration clause providing for the entire amount of a note to be due upon the default of any one installment, [a plaintiff is] only entitled to recover past due installments and [can]not unilaterally declare the note[] accelerated” … . “Rather, each default on each installment gives rise to a separate cause of action” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence of an acceleration clause and, thus, plaintiff was entitled to recover “only the amount of the installments past due at the time of trial” … . … “Where, as here, ‘a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due’ ” … . As defendant correctly asserted as a defense, inasmuch as plaintiff commenced this action on July 13, 2017, any claims for missed installments that accrued prior to July 13, 2011 were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations … . Estate of Kathryn Essig v Essig, 2021 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

July 9, 2021

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Contract Law

A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING THE ATTORNEY’S NAME IN THE EMAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, overruling precedent, determined it is no longer necessary for an attorney to retype his or her name in an email stipulation of settlement. As long as the attorney’s name appears in the “prepopulated” area of the email it will be deemed to have been signed by the attorney:

We now hold that this distinction between prepopulated and retyped signatures in emails reflects a needless formality that does not reflect how law is commonly practiced today. It is not the signoff that indicates whether the parties intended to reach a settlement via email, but rather the fact that the email was sent. Since 1999, New York State has joined other states in allowing, in most contexts, parties to accept electronic signatures in place of “wet ink” signatures. Section 304(2) of New York’s Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) provides: “unless specifically provided otherwise by law, an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand.” Moreover, the statutory definition of what constitutes an “electronic signature” is extremely broad under the ESRA, and includes any “electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record” (State Technology Law § 302[a]). We find that if an attorney hits “send” with the intent of relaying a settlement offer or acceptance, and their email account is identified in some way as their own, then it is unnecessary for them to type their own signature. Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Indem. Co. v Kendall, 2021 NY Slip Op 04284, First Dept 7-8-21

July 8, 2021

Contract Law, Real Property Law

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE AGREEMENT TO CONVEY A FARM TO A PARTNERSHIP WAS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS FOR PART PERFORMANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint alleged the agreement to convey a farm to a partnership was subject to an exception to the statute of frauds for part performance:

“General Obligations Law § 5-703 (4) has carved out an exception to the statute of frauds to permit courts of equity to compel the specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance” … . “A party’s partial performance of an alleged oral contract will be deemed sufficient to take such contract out of the statute of frauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts constituting partial performance are unequivocally referable to said contract” … .

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he drastically changed his behavior after the agreement, including leaving his studies at Cornell University to devote his full attention to the partnership. Plaintiff also claims that he moved onto the subject premises, that he contributed financially to the business, which was struggling under burdensome mortgage payments, and that defendant referred to him as his business partner and co-owner of the farm. Plaintiff also made substantial improvements to both his residence on the farm, in which he resided full time, and to the farm itself. Given that all of these actions are unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement, we find that dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based upon the statute of frauds was improper … . Leonard v Cummins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04269, Third Dept 7-8-21

July 8, 2021

Contract Law, Family Law

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the separation agreement was not unconscionable, there were questions of fact whether the agreement was the product of overreaching requiring a hearing:

While the defendant waived the right to maintenance, this provision, by itself, is insufficient to render the agreement unconscionable … .

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the issue of whether the agreement should be set aside on the ground of overreaching. “Although courts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching, the general rule is that if the execution of the agreement is fair, no further inquiry will be made” … . No actual fraud needs to be shown in order to set aside an agreement, but “the challenging party must show overreaching in the execution, such as the concealment of facts, misrepresentation, cunning, cheating, sharp practice, or some other form of deception” … .

Here, the agreement reflects a vast disparity between the parties’ assets at the time of its execution. Moreover, the defendant’s submissions suggest that the plaintiff may have unilaterally selected and paid the defendant’s attorney, and that negotiations between the parties’ attorneys went on for approximately six weeks prior to the defendant’s initial consultation with her attorney. Marinakis v Marinakis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04218, Second Dept 7-7-21

July 7, 2021

Contract Law, Trusts and Estates

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the differences between an action to impose a constructive trust and an action alleging unjust enrichment, here in the context of a couple’s investment in building a new house and the allegation one party put in 800 hours of unpaid labor which benefitted the other party. The court held the constructive trust action was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment action should not have been dismissed:

Although the equitable claims of constructive trust and unjust enrichment are elementally related and involve overlapping proof, certain essential elements differ. “[A] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest” … . “The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment” … .As relevant here, with respect to the promise element, it may be express or implied, as determined by the circumstances … . “Finally, a person . . . is unjustly enriched when retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … .

Importantly, and as relevant here, “the constructive trust doctrine serves as a fraud-rectifying remedy rather than an intent-enforcing one” … . By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that “(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’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” … . Clark v Locey, 2021 NY Slip Op 04176, Third Dept 7-1-21

July 1, 2021

Attorneys, Contract Law, Legal Malpractice, Negligence

THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS NO WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED WORDS AND ACTIONS SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed on the ground there was no retainer agreement and therefore no attorney-client relationship:

As to the legal malpractice cause of action, the … defendants contend that they had no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff. An attorney-client relationship may arise even in the absence of a written retainer agreement, and a court must look to the words and actions of the parties to determine whether such a relationship exists … . Here, according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, she sufficiently alleged the existence of an attorney-client relationship … . Edelman v Berman, 2021 NY Slip Op 04120, Second Dept 6-30-21

June 30, 2021

Attorneys, Contract Law, Legal Malpractice, Negligence

THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY OVERBILLED SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for breach of contract alleging overbilling by defendant attorney (Drexel) should have survived the motion to dismiss, even though the legal malpractice cause of action was properly dismissed:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [defendant-attorney] Drexel’s motion which was to dismiss so much of the first breach of contract cause of action as alleged that Drexel overbilled and charged the plaintiff for unnecessary legal services … . In opposition to that branch of Drexel’s motion which was to dismiss the first breach of contract cause of action, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that Drexel double-billed him for legal services in the sum of $291,000 and charged him at least $70,000 for unnecessary legal services. Contrary to Drexel’s contention, the plaintiff’s claim that Drexel overbilled and charged him for unnecessary legal services is distinct from a legal malpractice cause of action, as the plaintiff’s claim does not challenge the quality of Drexel’s work … . Dubon v Drexel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04119, Second Dept 6-30-21

June 30, 2021

Contract Law, Landlord-Tenant

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC DID NOT ENTITLE PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT TO RENT ABATEMENT UNDER THE LEASE OR RESCISSION BASED UPON FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE OR IMPOSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID-19 pandemic did not entitle plaintiff to rent abatement under the lease and did support rescission of the lease based upon frustration of purpose or impossibility:

… [P]laintiff is not entitled to a rent abatement under the lease “due to loss of use of all or a portion of the Demised Premises due to [a] Casualty[.]” That portion of the lease refers to singular incidents causing physical damage to the premises and does not contemplate loss of use due to a pandemic or resulting government lockdown … . …

The doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply as a matter of law where, as here, the tenant was not “completely deprived of the benefit of its bargain” (… 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times Sq. Photo Inc., 194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021] [finding that reduced revenues did not frustrate the purpose of the lease]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that Executive Order 202.8 [re: COVID-related suspension of laws] rendered it objectively impossible to perform its operations as a retail store as required by the lease is unavailing as defendant correctly points out that by the time plaintiff filed its complaint in July 2020, this was no longer the case … . Gap, Inc. v 170 Broadway Retail Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04115, First Dept 6-29-21

June 29, 2021

Constitutional Law, Contract Law, Family Law

THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment by sending email about petitioner’s personal matters to 53 people. Although the harassment prohibitions in the order of protection did not violate the Firs Amendment, the provision in the order of protection which prohibited respondent from discussing the petitioner or the proceedings was struck as unnecessary:

Respondent contends that the provision of the order prohibiting him from discussing petitioner or the case with anyone familiar with petitioner violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be sure, respondent’s repeatedly sending petitioner emails articulating his unwanted opinions about her, her mother and their family dynamic or making petitioner aware of the emails he sent to several third parties broadcasting those opinions by blind-copying her on those messages is not protected by the First Amendment, because those repeated and unwanted communications serve no legitimate purpose … . However, because the harassment is adequately addressed by the provision that respondent stay away from petitioner and not contact her, we delete the prohibition against his discussing petitioner or the proceeding … . Matter of Sophia M. v James M., 2021 NY Slip Op 03992, First Dept 6-22-21

June 22, 2021

Contract Law, Insurance Law

THE AMBIGUITY IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT CLEARED UP BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE INSURER; THE INSURER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCLAIMED COVERAGE FOR WATER DAMAGE CAUSED BY FROZEN PIPES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer should not have disclaimed coverage for water damage caused by frozen pipes in plaintiffs’ seasonal home. The case turned on the whether the plaintiffs took “reasonable care” (within the meaning of the policy) to maintain the heat in the house:

… [P]laintiffs established as follows: the home’s heating system was recently installed, was regularly maintained, and had never required repairs; Robert P. McAleavey (plaintiff) winterized the property by setting the internal temperature to approximately 50 degrees in the late fall of 2017; plaintiff checked on the home approximately 15 times during the winter of 2017-2018; during those visits, plaintiff ensured that the temperature was appropriate, that no windows were broken, that the toilets flushed, and that the water ran; and plaintiff last visited the house on January 11 or 12, 2018, at which point the interior temperature was “comfortable.” Although plaintiff was unable to visit the property between mid-January and late February 2018 due to a broken leg and his resulting hospitalization, plaintiffs’ submissions established that, during such period, they had no notice or reason to suspect that anything was wrong with the premises or the heating system. Moreover, plaintiffs’ neighbors and realtor periodically checked on the property’s exterior.

In our view, the term “reasonable care” as used in the policy is ambiguous inasmuch as it is susceptible of at least two reasonable interpretations, at least one of which supports plaintiffs’ contention that they exercised reasonable care, and this ambiguity was not resolved by extrinsic evidence … .

” ‘[U]nder [these] circumstances, the ambiguity must be resolved against the insurer which drafted the contract’ ” … . We thus conclude that plaintiff’s loss is specifically covered under the policy and that the exclusion relied on by defendant does not unambiguously apply in this case … . McAleavey v Chautauqua Patrons Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 03954, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

June 17, 2021