You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF MUST ARBITRATE HIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; AFTER THE UNION REFUSED TO ARBITRATE THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE INSTANT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Christopher, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the controlling collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The union had declined to pursue the arbitration of the discrimination claims and plaintiff then commenced the instant action pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. The opinion is to detailed to fairly summarize here. The plaintiff’s complaint was stayed pending arbitration:

“[A]rbitration must be preferred unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute” … . An agreement to arbitrate must be “clear, explicit and unequivocal” … . “Arbitration is a matter of contract, and arbitration clauses, which are subject to ordinary principles of contract interpretation, must be enforced according to their terms” … . * * *

… [I]n order for the plaintiff to be required to arbitrate his employment discrimination claims, the CBA must “clearly and unmistakably” waive the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum … . Here, the mandatory arbitration clause “clearly and unmistakably” waives the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum. It explicitly references the employment discrimination statutes that the plaintiff has alleged were violated, and states that “[a]ll such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.” * * *

The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint was improper. “An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action,” and “[t]hus, it may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . However, upon granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the court should have stayed the action …, the order granting a motion to compel “shall operate to stay a pending . . . action.” Wilson v PBM, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00593, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court did not have the authority to declare certain portions of the stipulation of settlement invalid. A plenary action was necessary:

… [A] plenary action was required to seek to set aside the stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce … . There are exceptions to this general rule, such as where reformation of a separation agreement is sought to conform the agreement with the intent of the parties … , or where the matrimonial action is still pending and was not terminated with entry of a judgment … , or in certain circumstances where enforcement of child support is sought … . None of these exceptions are applicable here.

In view of the foregoing, those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to vacate the provisions of the stipulation of settlement concerning equitable distribution and maintenance should have been denied. Jagassar v Deonarine, 2021 NY Slip Op 00549, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; INSURANCE LAW 2601 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION WILL SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined emotional-distress damages are not available for breach of contract and Insurance Law 2601 does not create a private right of action. Plaintiff’s property was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Plaintiff and defendant insurers reached a settlement agreement in which defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $1.6 million within 21 days. Defendants paid only about $400,000, claiming that the over $1 million already paid, together with the $400,000, satisfied the $1.6 million agreed to. Supreme Court and the Second Department disagreed finding that the settlement agreement was unambiguous. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action (the defendants’ mutual and unilateral mistake arguments were rejected). The deceptive business practices (General Business Law 349) cause of action, together with the related punitive damages claim, survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. With respect to damages for emotional distress, the court wrote:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s demand for damages for emotional distress. A breach of a contractual duty does not create a right of recovery for damages for emotional distress … . Here, the plaintiff alleges no facts giving rise to a relationship between him and the defendants apart from the insurance contract and settlement agreement. An alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not support an award of damages for emotional distress … . Inasmuch as Insurance Law § 2601 serves to regulate insurers’ performance of their contractual obligations rather than to create a separate duty of care and does not give rise to a private cause of action … , the defendants’ alleged violation of their obligations under Insurance Law § 2601 does not support a claim for damages for emotional distress. Perlbinder v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 00439, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND LEGISLATION PROHIBITING EVICTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC APPLIED TO A HOLDOVER TENANT WHO HAD ENTERED AN AGREEMENT TO VACATE THE APARTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the Executive Orders and legislation prohibiting evictions during the COVID pandemic precluded the eviction of a holdover tenant based upon an agreement by the tenant to vacate the apartment:

On August 27, 2020, petitioner commenced a summary eviction proceeding seeking a warrant of eviction to remove respondents from the premises (see RPAPL 711 [1]). At an appearance before Supreme Court on September 17, 2020, the parties, with the assistance of counsel, reached an agreement in which respondents agreed to vacate the premises on or before October 2, 2020. Pursuant to the agreement, the court issued a warrant of eviction, effective October 3, 2020, to be executed if respondents failed to vacate. Respondents remained on the premises and, on October 5, 2020, the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, in accordance with the warrant, served respondents a 14-day notice indicating that the eviction would take place on October 21, 2020. After counsel for respondent Kaia Humphrey (hereinafter respondent) contacted the County Attorney’s office regarding the suspension of evictions via a new executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, petitioner moved for an order seeking, among other things, enforcement of the parties’ agreement to vacate and of the warrant of eviction. Following a virtual appearance on October 20, 2020, Supreme Court granted petitioner’s motion and ordered enforcement of the warrant of eviction. Respondent appeals. * * *

Because these executive orders prohibit enforcement of residential evictions, without any exceptions for holdover proceedings or warrants issued based on stipulations, Supreme Court was precluded from ordering enforcement of the warrant to evict respondents. Further executive orders have extended the stay on enforcements to December 3, 2020 … . …

Furthermore, on December 28, 2020, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 … . That act, which was effective immediately … , allows tenants to file a hardship declaration, which will prevent an eviction until at least May 1, 2021 … . Matter of Cabrera v Humphrey, 2021 NY Slip Op 00358, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE DATE WAS PROPERLY SET; THE BUYER WAS NOT ABLE TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE: DEFENDANTS-SELLERS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DOWNPAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants-sellers were entitled to retain the downpayment after the buyer was not ready, willing and able to close on the time-of-the-essence date:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that they effectively made September 3, 2014, a time of the essence closing date, and that, although they were ready, willing, and able to close on September 3, 2014, the plaintiff was not ready, willing, and able to close on that date  … . The defendants also established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was in default by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not appear at the closing and admitted that he did not have the funds to close … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to cancel the notice of pendency.

A buyer “who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse, cannot recover the down payment,” at least where, as here, that down payment represents 10% or less of the contract price … . Ashkenazi v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 00140, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

,

AN ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION ON AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE IS NOT A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; THEREFORE THE ANSWER DID NOT VOID THE POLICY WHICH REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question in the application for insurance coverage was ambiguous. Therefore the answer to the question was not a material misrepresentation and the policy remains in full force and effect:

A misrepresentation in an insurance application is material, voiding the policy ab initio, if, had the true facts been known, either the insurer would not have issued the policy or would have charged a higher premium … . Even an innocent misrepresentation is sufficient to void the policy … . However, “an answer to an ambiguous question on an insurance application cannot be the basis for a claim of misrepresentation” in procuring insurance … .

Here, on defendants-respondents’ insurance application submitted to plaintiff, Question 9, which asked “Any uncorrected code violations?” is ambiguous. While the plain language asks whether there are “any uncorrected fire code violations” and not uncorrected fire code notices of violation, different witnesses provided five different understandings as to what the question was asking. In any event, this Court has used the term “violation” to mean the issuance of a citation … . Indeed, the question is not even posed as a complete sentence but a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which could have clarified the question. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v Monte Carlo, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00044, First Dept 1-5-21

 

,

DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFFS (INSUREDS) VIOLATED THE COOPERATION CLAUSE IN THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer did not eliminate all questions of fact whether the plaintiffs (insureds) violated the cooperation clause in the policy:

“An unexcused and willful refusal to comply with disclosure requirements in an insurance policy is a material breach of the cooperation clause and precludes recovery on a claim. Compliance with such a clause is a condition precedent to coverage, properly addressed by the court” … . “In order to establish breach of a cooperation clause, the insurer must show that the insured engaged in an unreasonable and willful pattern of refusing to answer material and relevant questions or to supply material and relevant documents” … .

Here, the defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiffs breached the cooperation clause of the policy. Jahangir v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 08049, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action was unconscionable should have been dismissed:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of her cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second cause of action, seeking to set aside the stipulation on the ground of unconscionability. “‘An unconscionable bargain is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense'” … . “An agreement, however, is not unconscionable ‘merely because, in retrospect, some of its provisions were improvident or one-sided'” … . Here, the terms of the stipulation, while perhaps improvident or one-sided in favor of the defendant, were not so unfair as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense. Heinemann v Heinemann, 2020 NY Slip Op 08044, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy addressing a matter of first impression, determined the plaintiff insurer, which was not obligated to indemnify the insureds for a $900,000 default judgment because plaintiff insurer was not timely notified of the claim, could not recover the costs of defending the action from the insureds and the successful plaintiff in the underlying action. The policy was silent on the question. At issue was the effect of a reservation of rights in a letter to the insureds:

There is little doubt that the insurance company could have included in the policy a provision wherein it could recover its defense costs (upon a reservation of rights and a judicial determination that it is not required to indemnify) had it wanted to, but it did not do so here.

The insurance company points to its May 2017 letter wherein it reserved its rights to seek to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation and argues that other New York courts … . * * *

Typically, a reservation of rights letter asserts defenses and exclusions that are set forth in the policy between the parties. Indeed, awarding an insurer its defense costs when the insurer issues a reservation of rights letter for the same despite the lack of any language in the policy at issue permitting the insurer to recover the costs of defending claims that are later determined not covered by the policy flies in the face of basic contract principles and allows an insurer to impose a condition on its defense that was not bargained for … . Moreover, “‘strong policy considerations militate against allowing an insurer to unilaterally declare that it can recoup the costs of defending an insured where it is later determined [that the policy at issue did not cover the asserted claims]'” as doing so would allow an insurer to define its duty to defend based upon the outcome of a declaratory judgment action and significantly curtail New York’s long held view that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify … .  Thus, we hold that the insurance company may not recover its defense costs based on the May 2017 letter wherein it reserved its rights to recoup its defense costs in the underlying litigation absent an express provision to that effect in the policy. American W. Home Ins. Co. v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

THE CONTRACT PROPERLY ACCORDED THE ARBITRATOR THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE “GATEWAY” QUESTIONS OF ARBITRABILITY; NONSIGNATORIES ARE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, over a two-justice dissent, determined: (1) the contract properly accorded the arbitrator the power to decide whether the issues raised in the complaint were arbitrable (so-called “gateway” questions); and (2) the non-signatories, here plaintiff’s LLC and defendant’s law partner and law firm, are subject to the arbitration provision in the contract. Plaintiff is a professional football player and defendant is an attorney who represented plaintiff in contract negotiation and marketing and endorsements. The opinion is detailed and comprehensive and cannot be fully summarized here:

… Revis [plaintiff athlete] entered into an agreement with Schwartz [defendant attorney] pursuant to which they agreed to arbitrate “gateway” questions of arbitrability … . …

… [N]either the Supreme Court, nor this Court, nor any court, has the authority to decide whether and to what extent these parties’ disputes are arbitrable … . Indeed, just as a court may not “rule on the potential merits of the underlying” claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, “even if it appears to the court to be frivolous”… , “a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator” … , even if the court determines that “the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to the particular dispute is ‘wholly groundless'” … . * * *

“Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory ‘knowingly exploits’ the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . Revis v Schwartz, 2020 NY Slip Op 08094, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

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