You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the criteria for an order of attachment were not met. The court noted that suspicion of an intent to defraud and the removal, assignment or disposition of property is not enough to warrant the harsh remedy of attachment:

CPLR 6212(a) provides that, on a motion for an order of attachment, “the plaintiff shall show, by affidavit and such other written evidence as may be submitted, that there is a cause of action, that it is probable that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, that one or more grounds for attachment provided in section 6201 exist, and that the amount demanded from the defendant exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.” “Attachment is considered a harsh remedy and CPLR 6201 is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed” … .

The plaintiffs failed to make an adequate evidentiary showing that each of the defendants is a nondomiciliary residing without the state (see CPLR 6201[1]; see also General Construction Law § 35). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to defraud creditors or frustrate enforcement of a possible judgment against them (see CPLR 6201[3]) “was devoid of evidentiary support” … . “The fact that the affidavits in support of an attachment contain allegations raising a suspicion of an intent to defraud is not enough. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … , and “the mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . 651 Bay St., LLC v Discenza, 2020 NY Slip Op 07331, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

,

THE BUILDING OWNER HAD, BY CONTRACT, RELINQUISHED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN ELEVATOR AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INNER GATE CLOSED ON HER SHOULDER, PINNING HER, AND THE ELEVATOR THEN DESCENDED; A QUESTION OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE WAS RAISED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined that the building owner, 1067 Fifth Avenue Corp. had, by contract, relinquished the responsibility to maintain the elevator to defendant American Elevator. Plaintiff alleged the elevator inner gate closed on her shoulder and then the elevator descended. Plaintiff alleged she injured her shoulder, neck and back pulling her arm free. Although the defendants demonstrated they did not have actual or constructive notice of the defect, a question of fact was raised pursuant to the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Based on its maintenance contract with American, the action against the building owner should have been dismissed:

… [U]nder the terms of its contract with 1067 Fifth, American was responsible for providing “full comprehensive maintenance and repair services” for the elevators, which included maintaining “[t]he entire vertical transportation system,” including “all engineering, material, labor, testing, and inspections needed to achieve work specified by the contract.” Further, under the terms of the contract, maintenance “include[s], but is not limited to, preventive services, emergency callback services, inspection and testing services, repair and/or direct replacement component renewal procedures.” The contract also provided for American to “schedule [ ] systematic examinations, adjustments, cleaning and lubrication of all machinery, machinery spaces, hoistways and pits,” and to do all “repairs, renewals, and replacements . . . as soon as scheduled or other examinations reveal the necessity of the same.” Further, American agreed to provide emergency call-back service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Given such broad contractual responsibilities, American’s contract can be said to have “entirely displaced” the responsibility of 1067 Fifth and Elliman to maintain the safety of the building’s elevators, which gave rise to a duty owed directly to plaintiff by America … . Sanchez v 1067 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07326, First Dept 12-8-20

 

,

THE PROPERTY OWNER SUED THE VILLAGE ALLEGING THE VILLAGE BREACHED A CONTRACT IN FAILING TO RE-ZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT; A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER A CONTRACT WHICH CONTROLS ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action by plaintiff property owner alleging the defendant village breached a contract to rezone the property to allow development should have been dismissed. A municipality does not have the authority to make contracts which control legislative powers and duties:

Even were we to find that the stipulations contained a provision that required the Village Board to enact zoning, such a provision is unenforceable, as obligating the Village Board to enact certain zoning requiring a legislative act cannot be agreed to by stipulation. “While a municipality possesses the inherent right to compromise a claim against it, it may not, under the guise of a compromise, impair a public duty owed by it or give validity to a void claim. Municipal corporations have no power to make contracts which will embarrass or control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties” … . Moreover, “[t]he term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so. Elected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors to exercise those powers” … . BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2020 NY Slip Op 07157, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER AGREEMENT THE TENANT OWED THE LANDLORD AN ADDITIONAL $175,000; UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, THE PLAINTIFF SUED FOR THE CONTRACTUAL LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000; THE JUDGMENT FOR $175,000 WAS UPHELD; THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000 VIOLATED THE PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST NON-STATUTORY PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined the liquidated damages provision of the landlord-tenant surrender agreement violated the public policy against penalties or forfeitures for which there is no statutory penalty. Defendant-tenant, a grocery store chain, entered a surrender agreement with plaintiff-landlord which allowed defendant to get out from under the lease by making certain installment payments. Defendant defaulted on some of the payments (approximately $175,000) and plaintiff sought to recover liquidated damages of over $1,000,000. Defendant had timely surrendered the premises and it had been relet. Supreme Court had denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross-motion agreeing to pay $175,000:

Under our well-established rules of contract, the Surrender Agreement’s liquidated damages provision does not fairly compensate plaintiff for defendant’s delayed installment payments. The provision calls for a sum more than sevenfold the amount due if defendant had complied fully with the Surrender Agreement. We cannot enforce such an obviously and grossly disproportionate award without offending our State’s public policy against “the imposition of penalties or forfeitures for which there is no statutory authority” … . Accordingly, there was no error in rejecting plaintiff’s liquidated damages provision. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v D’Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06937, Ct App 11-24-20

 

,

BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES AT ISSUE, THE EXCESS INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON THE PERSONAL INJURY JUDGMENT AFTER THE PRIMARY POLICY WAS VOIDED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions, interpreted the insurance policies at issue such that the excess insurer was not obligated to pay interest on the underlying personal injury judgment after the primary policy was voided:

This appeal involves a dispute concerning an excess insurer’s obligation to pay interest on an underlying personal injury judgment after the primary policy was voided. Like the courts below, we are unpersuaded by the injured plaintiff’s argument that the excess policy provided overlapping coverage for certain interest payments covered in the primary policy … .

Plaintiff Jin Ming Chen was injured at a construction site and sued the general contractor Kam Cheung Construction, Inc. (Kam Cheung). At the time, Kam Cheung maintained both primary and excess liability insurance policies: a primary policy with a liability limit of $1 million per occurrence from Arch Specialty Insurance Company (Arch) and an excess policy with $4 million per occurrence in coverage from defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP). In December 2011, Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff in that action, and, in October 2013, the court entered a personal injury judgment awarding plaintiff $2,330,000 plus $396,933.70 in prejudgment interest. During that time, Arch commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking rescission of the primary policy due to material misrepresentations made by Kam Cheung in its application, securing a judgment declaring that the Arch Policy was void ab initio. Thus, Arch provided no coverage relating to the personal injury judgment. * * *

Plaintiff effectively asks us to treat interest payments on the underlying award as falling within or reducing the Arch Policy’s $1 million liability limit, which is contrary to the plain language of the Arch Supplementary Payments provision and the ICSOP Policy’s Coverage, Ultimate Net Loss, and Maintenance of Underlying Insurance provisions. To do so would be inconsistent with the language chosen by the parties to the insurance contracts, rendering several clauses forceless—a result that should be avoided …. Arch agreed to expand its coverage of pre- and post-judgment interest beyond its liability limits, and ICSOP agreed to provide coverage only for losses in excess of Arch’s coverage—including both the $1 million Arch policy limit and its Supplementary Payments. Jin Ming Chen v Insurance Co. of the State of Pa., 2020 NY Slip Op 06938, Ct App 11-24-20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant contractor, CSI, was responsible for providing a safe alternative passageway while construction work blocked the sidewalk. Plaintiffs were struck by a car when they attempted to walk in the street. The CSI was hired by the general construction manager hired by Taco Bell, the owner of the premises:

“A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, CSI failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as its submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident. Byrd v Hughes, 2020 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, , ,

THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the custody arrangements set forth in the settlement agreement should not have been modified in the absence of a hearing and the modification should not have been based upon inadmissible evidence not tested by either party:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have granted, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to modify the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing … . While the general right to a hearing in custody and visitation cases is not absolute, where “facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,” a hearing is required … . Here, the record shows that there were disputed factual issues regarding the child’s best interests, such that a hearing on the defendant’s petition was necessary … .

In addition, decisions regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Here, in making its determination, the Supreme Court improperly relied solely on statements and conclusions of witnesses whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . Palazzola v Palazzola, 2020 NY Slip Op 06801, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, TAXES, INSURANCE, ETC.) ARE NOT USUALLY AVAILABLE WHEN A BUYER BREACHES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE SELLER REMAINS IN THE HOUSE AND THOSE COSTS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE BREACH, THE SAME IS NOT TRUE FOR A COMMERCIAL SELLER WHO DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE HOUSE AND MUST MAKE SIMILAR PAYMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined consequential damages were available to the commercial developer in this breach of a real estate purchase agreement case. Usually when a buyer breaches a purchase agreement consequential damages are not available because the seller remains in the house and the mortgage and other costs of living there have nothing to do with the breach. However, where, as here, the seller does not live in the house, the expenses association with the maintenance and care of the home after the breach are financial losses:

As a general rule, consequential damages are not available to a seller of residential real estate when the purchaser breaches the contract … . That is because, typically, the seller “retain[s] ownership, use and enjoyment of the premises,” and it cannot be said that the “mortgage interest expenses, repairs or utilities paid postbreach” are proximately caused by the breach … .

Where, however, the seller is a commercial developer, the seller does not live in the home and never intends to do so. Upon the purchaser’s breach, the developer begins to incur costs that reduce the profit margin. Such carrying costs may include, among other things, maintenance and utility costs as well as real property taxes. Whereas the ordinary residential seller, by living in the home after the purchaser’s breach, receives value for the carrying costs until the subsequent sale, the commercial developer does not receive such value. Instead, the carrying costs are nothing but a financial loss. Chrisanntha, Inc. v deBaptiste, 2020 NY Slip Op 06607, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE, THE COURT’S ROLE, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR’S ROLE, EXPLAINED; THE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to compel arbitration should have been granted. Among several substantive issues (not summarized here) the court explained the difference between determining the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court’s role, and interpreting a provision in the agreement, the arbitrator’s role:

The only challenge … that plaintiff could raise in opposition to that part of defendants’ motion seeking to compel arbitration is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, which is for a court to determine … . The challenge must be directed “specifically to the agreement to arbitrate” … . The validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements is governed by the rules applicable to contracts generally … . “[A] party may resist enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate on any basis that could provide a defense to or grounds for the revocation of any contract, including fraud, unconscionability, duress, overreaching conduct, violation of public policy, or lack of contractual capacity” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to raise any challenge to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. … [P]laintiff relied on a provision in the arbitration agreement that stated that it would not apply “to any employee represented by a labor organization … ” which plaintiff contends shows that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate. … [P]laintiff’s contention conflates the issue of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, which is for a court to decide, with the issue of the arbitrability of the dispute, which is for the arbitrator to determine. The arbitrability issue includes the interpretation of any contract provision, such as the provision exempting union employees from the arbitration agreement under certain circumstances … . Basile v Riley, 2020 NY Slip Op 06600, Fourth De[pt 11-13-20

 

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