You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its notice of claim was properly denied. The original demanded only an extension of time to complete the plumbing work plaintiff was hired to do by the NYC School Construction Authority. The proposed amended notice of claim included a demand for nearly $2.5 million in damages:

Public Authorities Law § 1744(2) requires the plaintiff to serve a notice of claim upon the defendant within three months after the accrual of such claim … . Under Public Authorities Law § 1744(3), a notice of claim “must set forth in detail . . . (i) the amount of the claim; (ii) a specific and detailed description of the grounds for the claim, relating the dollar amount claimed to the event purportedly giving rise to the claim and indicating how the dollar amount is arrived at; and (iii) the date of the event allegedly underlying the claim.” Here, the original notice of claim filed by the plaintiff failed to comply with Public Authorities Law § 1744(3) … .

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the original notice of claim, inter alia, to include damages in the total principal sum of $2,455,740.63. “A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the .. .claim or the theory of liability” . Here, the proposed amendments to the original notice of claim were not technical in nature, and thus, are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to explain the inordinate delay in seeking leave to amend the original notice of claim. BG Natl. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 03435, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the note was lost and did not present sufficient evidence to warrant correction of the legal description of the premises in the mortgage:

“Pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method of recovery on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit ‘due proof of [the plaintiff’s] ownership, the facts which prevent [its] production of [the note,] and its terms'” … . Here, the copy of the note annexed to the lost note affidavit provided sufficient evidence of the terms of the note … . However, the lost note affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note, as it “failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or how or when the note was lost” … .Thus, the affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note at the time the action was commenced. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [plaintiff’s] ]motion which was for summary judgment … to reform the mortgage to correct the legal description of the premises. “A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zolotnitsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-2-21, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, ,

THE PORTION OF THE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT WHICH PROHIBITED ENGAGING IN A SIMILAR PRACTICE OF LAW WITHIN 90 MILES OF NYC FOR 36 MONTHS WAS NULL AND VOID; HOWEVER THE PORTION WHICH PROHIBITED THE SOLICITATION OF CLIENTS WAS ENFORCEABLE AND SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that, although part of the noncompete agreement was null and void, the prohibition of soliciting plaintiff’s clients was enforceable. Therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Plaintiff Feiner & Lavy, P.C., is a law firm that specializes in immigration law. Defendant Gadi Zohar, Esq. was a former associate attorney with plaintiff, and defendant Jihan Asli was its office manager for several years before joining Zohar’s law firm, Zohar Law PLLC. … According to plaintiff, the employment agreement prohibited Zohar from engaging in any business that conducts the same or similar business as plaintiff for a period of 36 months, within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community. The agreement also purported to prohibit Zohar from directly or indirectly soliciting any business from customers or clients of plaintiff for a period of 36 months within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community; or advertise on Israeli/Hebrew websites, TV or newspaper ads. * * *

Rule 5.6(a)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct … bars lawyers from “participat[ing] in offering or making a partnership, shareholder, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship,” except under limited circumstances that are not relevant to this appeal. To the extent the noncompete provision in the employment agreement that Zohar executed with plaintiff seeks to prevent him from “conducting business activities that are the same or similar to those of [plaintiff]” within 90 miles of New York City or in the Israeli community, it is void and unenforceable … .

However, the noncompete clause here may be enforceable to the extent that it prohibits Zohar from soliciting plaintiff’s clients … . Feiner & Lavy, P.C. v Zohar, 2021 NY Slip Op 03407, First Dept 6-1-21

 

,

WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT DUPLICATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court noted that where there is a dispute about the existence of an enforceable contract, a cause of actiono for unjust enrichment is not duplicative:

With respect to the unjust enrichment … [t]hese claims should not have been dismissed as duplicative because “where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or the application of a contract in the dispute in issue, a plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quasi contract as well as breach of contract, and will not be required to elect his or her remedies” … . CIP GP 2018, LLC v Koplewicz, 2021 NY Slip Op 03370, First Dept 5-27-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS LEARNED OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FRAUD MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS SIX YEARS BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the fraud, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were timely brought against defendant attorney. Defendant attorney represented a party who was found to have defrauded plaintiffs in an arbitration resulting in a $56,4 million judgment. Plaintiffs alleged the attorney’s participation in the fraud was not discovered until the arbitration proceedings:

The limitations period for fraud is the greater of six years from the date of the fraud or two years from the time when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff could have uncovered the fraud (CPLR 213[8] … ). In order to prevail, the defendant must show that there is no issue of fact under either prong. Here, defendant failed to show dispositively that plaintiffs were in possession of facts that would have triggered inquiry notice under CPLR 213(8) more than two years before the action was commenced … . …

Nor are plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims time-barred. Both claims are subject to the six-year statute of limitations because they are based on allegations of actual fraud (CPLR 213[8] …). Sabourin v Chodos, 2021 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 5-27-21

 

, ,

THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in lieu of complaint based upon guarantees which met the definition of instruments for the payment of money only. The court noted that two arguments raised for the first time on appeal (documents not qualified as business records and failure to include a payment schedule) could not be considered because they were not purely legal arguments. A third argument, which was purely legal, was considered:

Defendants’ contention that the guaranties do not qualify as instruments for the payment of money only, as required by CPLR 3213, because they guarantee performance as well as payment and reference must be made to documents outside the guaranties to determine if the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) conditions have been met, is unavailing. Although this argument was raised for the first time on appeal, since these are “legal issues appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided” if they had been raised earlier, we will address the argument … .

The guaranty at issue in 27 West 72nd St. qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only because it guarantees only payment and not performance. … [T]he … operative provision of the guaranty says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment of the Guaranteed Obligations.”

The guaranty at issue in 31 East 28th St. also qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only. Although it says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of the Guaranteed Obligations as and when due and payable,” the mere addition of the words “and performance” does not necessarily remove the guaranty from the category of instruments for the payment of money only, particularly when the sentence ends with “as and when due and payable.”  27 W. 72nd St. Note Buyer LLC v Terzi, 2021 NY Slip Op 03364, First Dept 5-27-21

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately alleged fraud (inflating the value of defendants’ business which was purchased by plaintiff) and breach of contract:

… [T]he key … element of a claim for fraudulent concealment — duty to disclose — is met here, given the hidden nature of the fraud, which turned on falsified records and bribed auditors, and the practical impossibility of discovering the fraud through ordinary diligence … .

Defendants’ alleged deception also breached numerous warranties set forth in the governing stock purchase agreement, including that … financial statements were materially complete and correct, that its [earning] projections were reasonable and made in good faith, that it had no material undisclosed liabilities, and that it conducted its business in compliance with applicable law. Nevertheless, “[a] warranty is not a promise of performance, but a statement of present fact. Accordingly, a fraud claim can be based on a breach of contractual warranties notwithstanding the existence of a breach of contract claim” … . Thus, the fraud claim does not duplicate the contract claim … . VXI Lux Holdco, S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03294, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, , , , ,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the arbitrator’s award was valid even if an error of law or fact was made; (2) the failure to provide a letter of engagement did not preclude the petitioner-attorney’s action for breach of contract; (3) petitioner was not required to commence a special proceeding to enforce the judgment; (4) the motions to enforce the judgement do not violate the Commercial Division rules:

… [E]ven if the arbitrator had made an error of law or fact in concluding that respondents had breached the retainer agreements, this alone would not justify vacating the award … . …

… [T]he court improperly denied the motions [to enforce the judgment] based upon its finding that petitioner had failed to commence a separate special proceeding to enforce the judgment. The language of CPLR 5225 clarifies that the court had jurisdiction to resolve the turnover motion. While CPLR 5225(a) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property “in possession or custody” of the judgment debtor does so “[u]pon motion of the judgment creditor,” CPLR 5225(b) provides that a judgment creditor seeking turnover of money or personal property in a third party’s possession or custody does so “[u]pon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor” … Given that petitioner brought the motions against the judgment debtor as opposed to a third party, it was not required to commence a separate proceeding. Matter of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v World Class Capital Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03252, First Dept 5-20-21

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

Although the plaintiff submitted copies of the 90-day notices purportedly sent to [defendant] Jimenez, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices were actually mailed, either through an affidavit of service, other proof of mailing by the post office, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure … . The unsubstantiated and conclusory assertion in an affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer that the 90-day notice was sent in accordance with RPAPL 1304 is insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to Jimenez by first-class and certified mail … . Moreover, the affiant based her assertions upon her review of unspecified business records without attaching any such business records to her affidavit … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … .

Similarly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the notice of default provisions of the consolidated mortgage, which required the plaintiff to send a notice of default to Jimenez at the notice address by first-class mail and to provide a 30-day cure period. Copies of the notice without proof of mailing, along with the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer averring, based upon her review of unspecified business records which were not attached to the affidavit, that such a notice of default was sent on an unspecified date, was insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .  Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Jimenez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03212, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, ,

A GENERAL RELEASE AND WAIVER WHICH IS CONTRADICTED BY ACTIONS WHICH POST-DATE THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A RELEASE; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 5019, TO VACATE THE COURT’S OWN ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) actions which post-date a release and waiver which conflict with the terms of the release and waiver indicate the document can not be construed as a release, and (2) the judge did not have the authority, sua sponte, to vacate the court’s own order:

“‘Where a waiver form purports to acknowledge that no further payments are owed, but the parties’ conduct indicates otherwise, the instrument will not be construed as a release'” … . …

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, vacating the December 2016 order. “‘Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party, or is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based. However, a trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment'” … . Additionally, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5015(a), a court may relieve a party from an order or judgment, but only ‘on motion of [an] interested person’ and ‘with such notice as the court may direct” … .

Here, to the extent that the Supreme Court was acting pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), the court erred, since that statute cannot be used by courts to vacate prior orders or judgments or “reconsider[ ] the merits of summary judgment” … . United Airconditioning Corp. v Axis Piping, Inc.2021 NY Slip Op 03210, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

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