You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

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

 

, , , , ,

FUNDS FOR PERSONAL CARE SERVICES ARE MEDICAID FUNDS SUBJECT TO THE AUDIT AND RECOUPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP)..

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined funds paid for personal care were Medicaid funds which were subject to the audit and recoupment authority of the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA). The facts are explained in the Appellate Division decision:

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below (Matter of People Care Inc. v City of New York, 175 AD3d 134, 147-152 [1st Dept 2020] [Richter, J.P., dissenting]), we conclude that the funds for personal care services paid to petitioner People Care, Inc. under the Health Care Reform Act (Public Health Law §§ 2807-v [1] [bb] [i], [iii]) are Medicaid funds subject to the audit and recoupment authority of the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA) in accordance with the parties’ 2001 contract. Matter of People Care Inc. v City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin., 2021 NY Slip Op 01834, CtApp 3-25-21

 

,

IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the written-indemnification-clause requirement in Workers’ Compensation Law section 11 does not require that the document be signed to be enforceable:

Plaintiff was injured while engaged in renovation of an apartment in Park Regis’s cooperative building. The motion court correctly concluded that ASA, plaintiff’s employer, was bound by the provisions of the alteration agreement between Park Regis and the nonparty cooperative shareholder lessees requiring the lessees’ general contractor to indemnify and procure insurance in favor of Park Regis (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 …). …

Even if the alteration agreement were not signed by ASA, ASA would still be bound by it, because the record shows that it intended to be bound by it (see Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363, 369 [2005] [“nothing in the language of (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11) or its legislative history (suggests) that, in addition to requiring a written indemnification clause, the Legislature intended to deviate from the common-law rule that written documents can be enforced even if they are not signed”]). ASA’s field supervisor and project manager testified that ASA “signs every alteration agreement[]” before commencing work, that he believed ASA had done so in connection with this project, that he understood ASA to be bound by the terms of the alteration agreement requiring it to procure insurance for and indemnify Park Regis, and that ASA had indeed procured insurance for Park Regis as required by the alteration agreement. Shala v Park Regis Apt. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 01870, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, , , , ,

THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) although guarantees generally are not instruments for the payment of money within the meaning of CPLR 3213, the language of the guarantee was unconditional and therefore met the criteria of such an instrument; (2) the COVID-19-related provision of the NYC Administrative Code and executive orders, prohibiting enforcement of commercial lease guarantees, do not apply where the business were not required to cease operations; (3) the warranty of habitability was not available as a defense because of the language of the guarantee; and (4) a commercial tenant cannot assert the warranty of habitability:

While a guarantee of both payment and performance does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213 … , paragraph 1 of the guaranty signed by defendants includes an unconditional obligation to pay all rent and additional rent owed under the sublease, and therefore does so qualify … ; “it required no additional performance by plaintiff[] as a condition precedent to payment or otherwise made defendant[s’] promise to pay something other than unconditional” … .

While the prohibition on the enforcement of commercial lease guaranties against natural persons under Administrative Code of City of NY § 22-1005 applies to businesses that were required to “cease operation” or “close to members of the public” under executive orders 202.3, 202.6, or 202.7, issued in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants never asserted that the nonparty subtenant ceased operations or closed to the public as a result of those orders.

Defendants’ claim that they properly raised warranty of habitability defenses under the sublease is without merit. Such defenses are not available to defendants because all defenses under the guaranty, with the exception of prior payment, were waived. Moreover, a commercial tenant cannot avail itself of the statutory warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b …). iPayment, Inc. v Silverman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01846, First Dept 3-25-21

 

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