You are here: / Contract Law
, , , , ,

IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty action against defendant trustee, Wilmington, should not have been dismissed. Wilmington acted as a trustee for assets transferred to the trust by a nonparty. The contract stated Wilmington would be responsible only for its own negligence but also stated no non-negotiable assets were to be placed into the trust. The nonparty which transferred assets to the trust acted fraudulently and made risky investments rendering the trust assets out-of-compliance with state law. Plaintiff sued Wilmington for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Wilmington argued that any damages suffered by plaintiff from the assets transferred by the nonparty were indirect, not direct, and therefore barred by the trust agreements:

… [I]t can be argued that, in light of Wilmington’s promise not to accept nonnegotiable assets into the trusts, and to be responsible for its own negligence, maintaining the value of the assets in the trusts was inherent in the service Wilmington agreed to provide. Thus, there is merit to plaintiffs’ argument that when the assets proved not to be negotiable, they lost the benefit of their bargain and were entitled to recover as direct damages the diminution in value, and the concomitant costs of restoring the assets to negotiable status, such as professional fees. * * *

… [A]t this stage of the litigation, it is difficult to discern whether the parties contemplated that Wilmington would have to pay the damages sought by plaintiffs if it failed to perform under the trust agreements. Again, the agreements provided that Wilmington would be liable for “its own negligence,” which a reasonable factfinder could consider as recognition that Wilmington, if it did not perform its duties in accordance with a minimum level of care, would need to pay more than the nominal damages represented by its fee. * * *

Even though the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims involved the same conduct, the fiduciary duty claim alleges a breach of a noncontractual duty relating to the trustee’s independent duty to perform nondiscretionary ministerial duties with respect to the negotiability of assets. Thus, the fact that Wilmington’s failure to prevent nonnegotiable assets from entering the trusts breached both fiduciary and contractual duties does not bar plaintiffs from seeking damages related to the former … . Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v Wilmington Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 02355, First Dept 4-20-21

 

, ,

THE CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION REGARDING THEIR PARENTS’ PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the children did not have standing to participate in the litigation of financial matters of their parents’ divorce, including the litigation concerning whether the prenuptial agreement should be set aside. Therefore the attorney for the child (AFC) did not have the authority to make a motion regarding the prenuptial agreement:

Although children have certain rights with respect to issues of child support, custody, and visitation in matrimonial actions … , children do not have a right to participate in the litigation of financial matters of their parents’ divorce relating to maintenance and/or equitable distribution.

Moreover, while “children’s attorneys are expected to participate fully in proceedings in which they are appointed” … , such participation is limited to matters in which the children are the “subject of the proceeding” (Family Court Act § 249; see Judiciary Law § 35[7]). Given that children are not bound by agreements entered into by their parents , they are not the “subject” of proceedings to determine the validity of their parents’ prenuptial agreement related to maintenance and equitable distribution (Family Court Act § 249). Mahadeo v Mahadeo, 2021 NY Slip Op 02286, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING ON WHETHER THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A CONTRACT WHICH MAY NOT BE UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN ENTERED MAY BECOME UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to a new hearing on whether the prenuptial agreement was unconscionable. In the agreement, each party waived maintenance, equitable distribution and attorney’s fees. At the time the agreement was entered plaintiff was making $75 to $80,000 per year. At the time of the divorce plaintiff alleged she had no assets and needed public assistance:

“An agreement between spouses or prospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse”… . “An agreement that might not have been unconscionable when entered into may become unconscionable at the time a final judgment would be entered” … .

Here, the plaintiff submitted evidence with her motion papers in support of her argument that the prenuptial agreement should be set aside as a matter of public policy since, at the time of her motion, she was unemployed, had become reliant on public assistance for herself and her children, and had no financial resources … . Despite the plaintiff having raised this argument, the Supreme Court failed to address the plaintiff’s contention that the enforcement of the agreement would result in the risk of her becoming a public charge … . Mahadeo v Mahadeo, 2021 NY Slip Op 02285, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

, ,

A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AFTER DISCOVERY HAD ENDED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should have been granted. Plaintiff raised a new theory in opposition to the motion, after discovery had ended:

Plaintiff Frank Darabont, represented by his agent, plaintiff Creative Arts Associates, entered into an agreement to develop and run the television series The Walking Dead in exchange for fixed payments for each episode of the series, as well as backend compensation contingent upon the show’s profitability, as calculated based on “Modified Adjusted Gross Receipts” (MAGR), with defendant AMC Network Entertainment LLC producing the series and exhibiting it on its own cable channel.

Plaintiffs’ claim that AMC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by crafting the formula for MAGR arbitrarily, irrationally, or in bad faith was improperly asserted for the first time in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment … . … [T]here are no allegations in the complaint that AMC engaged in misconduct by formulating the MAGR definition in such a manner as to deprive plaintiffs of contractual benefits. … [I]t would be prejudicial to require AMC to defend against a theory of liability asserted only after discovery had concluded. Darabont v AMC Network Entertainment LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02240, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER THE HOSE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DELIVER OIL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner, Goldner, was not liable for the actions of defendant independent contractor, UMEC, because Goldner did not oversee UMEC’s work and, based upon the protective measures taken by UMEC in the past, the incident was not foreseeable. UMEC delivered oil to Goldner and plaintiff allegedly tripped over the hose which ran across the sidewalk. In the past UMEC had set up safety measures to protect pedestrians from the tripping hazard:

“Generally, a party that hires an independent contractor cannot be held liable for the negligence of that independent contractor” … . “The primary justification for this rule is that one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor” … . There are various exceptions to this general rule, including “(1) [n]egligence of the employer in selecting, instructing, or supervising the contractor”; (2) “[n]on-delegable duties of the employer, arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff”; and (3) “[w]ork which is specially, peculiarly, or inherently dangerous” … .

Under the circumstances presented, we disagree with the motion court’s finding that triable issues of fact exist as to whether Goldner may be liable for the work of an independent contractor where danger is readily foreseeable. The deposition testimony shows that Goldner did not supervise, monitor, or control UMEC when the oil would be delivered. The evidence also shows that UMEC had a prior history of consistently placing safety measures to prevent a pedestrian from tripping over the oil hose. In light of the preexisting precautions established by UMEC and lack of any complaints from prior oil deliveries, Goldner was not placed on notice of the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the danger arose “because of the negligence of the independent contractor or [its] employees, which negligence [was] collateral to the work and which [was] not reasonably to be expected” … . Linder v United Metro Energy Servs. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02250, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING THE “BORROWING STATUTE” (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) DEFENSE IN AN AMENDED ANSWER SERVED AS OF RIGHT (WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT); LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the amended answer with counterclaims, alleging for the first time that the action was untimely under the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was properly served “as of right” (without leave of court) and the inclusion of the borrowing statute defense was not barred by the law of the case doctrine (LOTC). The opinion includes an in-depth discussion of the LOTC. The opinion rejected the arguments that certain contract provisions were conditions precedent as opposed to independent contractual obligations and certain breach of contract claims were really claims for indemnification. All of the contracts stem from residential-mortgage-backed-securities and obligations to cover losses from the alleged breach of “representations and warranties” concerning the underlying mortgages. With regard to the LOTC, the court wrote:

The doctrine of LOTC is a rule of practice premised upon sound policy that once an issue is judicially determined, further litigation of that issue should be precluded in a particular case … . It ends the matter as far as judges and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are concerned … . While it shares some characteristics of a larger family of kindred concepts, including res judicata and collateral estoppel, it is not identical … . All these concepts contemplate that the party opposing preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the underlying determination. LOTC, however, differs in that it only addresses the potentially preclusive effect of judicial determinations made during a single litigation and before a final judgment is rendered … . In addition, while res judicata and collateral estoppel are “rigid rules of limitation,” LOTC has been described as “amorphous” and involving “an element of discretion” … . Discretion, however, is circumscribed where the decision providing the basis for LOTC is by an appellate court. Thus, while LOTC cannot bind an appellate court to a trial court ruling … , it does bind a trial court (and subsequent appellate courts of coordinate jurisdiction) to follow the mandate of an appellate court, absent new evidence or a change in the law … . Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put – Back Litig., 2021 NY Slip Op 02252, First Dept 4-13-21

 

,

THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES, THEREFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IMPLICATED AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) APPLIED; THE CONTRACT PROPERLY PROVIDED THAT THE ARBIRTRATOR, NOT A COURT, WILL DECIDE GATEWAY ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied to the contract between corporations from different states and the contract properly provided that gateway issues of arbitrability are to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court:

Where “a contract containing an arbitration provision ‘affects’ interstate commerce, disputes arising thereunder are subject to the FAA” … . The surety agency agreement here between corporations from different states gave rise to a finding of interstate commerce and was subject to the FAA … . Although “a New York court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, limits its inquiry to whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the particular dispute” and all other questions are for the arbitrator … , the parties can agree to arbitrate gateway issues of arbitrability … .

Applying principles of New York state contract law, based on the choice of law provision governing the surety agency agreement … , and reading the contractual clauses together in context … , the provision that “[i]f a dispute or disagreement arises in connection with this Agreement, including a dispute or disagreement as to its formation or validity, such dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to arbitration,” refers any disputes over the validity or formation of the arbitration provision in question to arbitration. Accordingly, the matter here should proceed to arbitration. Matter of Bergassi Group LLC v Allied World Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 02265, First Dept 4-13-21

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE DEFEATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DEFENSE TO THE ALLEGED ORAL CONTRACT AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS HELD AS A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE PROVIDED FUNDS TO DEFENDANT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WHICH. PURSUANT TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT, WOULD BE TRANSFERRED BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion, determined there were question of fact about (1) whether part performance defeated the statute of frauds defense, (2) whether there was a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant and (3) whether the property was therefore held by defendant as a constructive trust. Plaintiff and defendant were close friends. Plaintiff alleged, pursuant to an oral agreement, he provided funds to defendant for the purchase of property which plaintiff would manage until defendant transferred it to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged there was no such agreement, plaintiff did not provide funds for the purchase of the property and defendant owned the property outright:

… [W]hile the plaintiff’s work in negotiating the purchase of the subject property and in managing it might be susceptible to other explanations, his contribution of approximately $1.5 million toward its purchase, albeit partially in the form of loans from the defendant, would be “unintelligible or at least extraordinary” without reference to the alleged oral agreement … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that although the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding part performance … . …

The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment … . …

… [T]he transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was not arm’s length but rather took place in the context of a friendship characterized not only by shared interests, cultural affiliations, and personal trust, but also by reliance on one another in business matters, including loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While any single factor might not be sufficient, by itself, to establish a fiduciary relationship … . …

… [T]he terms of the agreement as described by the plaintiff and as evidenced by the parties’ actions are not fatally indefinite. The “doctrine of definiteness” … should not be “applied with a heavy hand” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s promise to manage the property and pay its expenses was “a specific, bargained for legal detriment” irrespective of its value to the defendant … . Accordingly, the alleged oral agreement does not fail for lack of consideration. Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02185, Second Dept 4-7-21

The trial in this matter was held, plaintiff prevailed, and the Second Department affirmed: Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02186, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT BY THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM MANAGING AGENT STATED DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTED THE MANAGING AGENT IN AN UNRELATED MATTER INVOLVING THE CONDOMINIUM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dispute between the board of managers of Brightwater Condominium and the condominium managing agent, FirstService, determined the complaint stated causes of action for both breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and the law firm (Woods) which represented FirstService in another matter with only a tangential relationship with Brightwater should not have been disqualified:

Managing agents of a condominium may owe a fiduciary duty to the condominium, depending on the functions they assume … . A fiduciary, in the context of condominium management, “is one who transacts business, or who handles money or property, which is not [its] own or for [its] own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom [it] stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part” … . …

Although a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty which is based on the same facts and seeks identical damages is duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action and should be dismissed on that basis … , here, in addition to breaches of the management agreement, Brightwater alleges specific breaches of trust which are outside the duties set forth in the management agreement, such as misappropriation of funds, and instances of self-dealing, set forth with specificity. …

FirstService did not dispute Brightwater’s showing that no confidential information was obtained from FirstService by the Woods Firm in connection with that prior action. As there is no indication in the record that confidential information was disclosed, there is no basis for disqualification … . Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v FirstService Residential N.Y., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02128, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT REFORMATION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO NAME THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS INSUREDS WAS DUE TO A MUTUAL MISTAKE; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant property owners (Pollards) did not state a cause of action for reformation of an insurance policy based upon mutual mistake. Defendants’ tenant slipped and fell on a staircase outside his apartment at 192-198 Main Street and made a claim against defendants. Defendants’ business, Pollard Excavating, was insured. The insurer disclaimed coverage of the slip and fall at defendants’ apartment because the policy covered only defendants’ business:

The Pollards … allege that they believed that they were covered in their individual capacities and that the failure of [the insurer] to name them as such was the product of a mutual mistake. “It is well established that when interpreting an insurance contract, as with any written contract, the court must afford the unambiguous provisions of the policy their plain and ordinary meaning” … .

… [T]he … third-party complaint asserts that the Pollards own the buildings located at 192-198 Main Street and that they are shareholders of Pollard Excavating and Pollard Disposal. The coverage form contained in the policy issued to Pollard Excavating specifically identifies the insured under the policy as a “corporation in the business of excavating” and further identifies, as relevant here, that “your stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their liability as stockholders.” Inasmuch as the express provisions of the insurance policy contract do not include individual coverage for the Pollards, it was incumbent upon the Pollards to allege sufficient facts showing mutual mistake. To that end, the second amended third-party complaint fails to contain any factual allegations that [the insurer] agreed to provide coverage to the Pollards in their individual capacities or that any oral agreement was reached by which [the insurer]  was obligated to do so. We therefore find that the … third-party complaint fails to allege with sufficient particularity that the parties “reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either [party], the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Hilgreen v Pollard Excavating, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02031, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

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