You are here: / Contract Law
,

FEDERAL TAX RETURNS AND EMAILS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211 (A)(1); THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) should not have been granted. Defendants submitted federal income tax returns to demonstrate the amount owed under the contract at issue:

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), “the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Further, where a court considers evidentiary material in the context of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint may only be dismissed when “it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said to that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

… {The business’s] federal income tax return, submitted by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss, was insufficient to utterly refute [the] allegation that [the business’s] 2016 profits exceeded the sum reported therein as “ordinary business income,” and to prove that this allegation was “not a fact at all.” Among other things, … the accuracy of the tax return [was disputed] … . While the defendants additionally submitted certain email correspondence … , these emails were not “documentary evidence” within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Lessin v Piliaskas, 2020 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the separation agreement was unconscionable as a matter of law and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, therefore, should not have been granted. The court outlined the analytical criteria for unconscionability in this context:

“A separation agreement or stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or … . However, because of the fiduciary relationship existing between spouses, a marital agreement 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 unjust because of the other spouse’s overreaching … . “In general, an unconscionable contract has been defined as one which is so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforc[ea]ble because of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” … . “This definition reveals two major elements which have been labeled by commentators, procedural and substantive unconscionability. The procedural element of unconscionability concerns the contract formation process and the alleged lack of meaningful choice; the substantive element looks to the content of the contract, per se” … . A reviewing court examining a challenge to a separation agreement “will view the agreement in its entirety and under the totality of the circumstances” … . Eichholz v Panzer-Eichholz, 2020 NY Slip Op 06500, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

ALLEGED CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged agreements to sell real property did not satisfy the statute of frauds:

“Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-703(2), a contract for the sale of real property ‘is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing'” … . “A writing satisfies the statute of frauds if it identifies the parties to the transaction, describes the properties to be sold with sufficient particularity, states the purchase price and the down payment required, and is subscribed by the party to be charged” … . Moreover, “‘a memorandum evidencing a contract and subscribed by the party to be charged must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement'” … . “In a real estate transaction, the essential terms of a contract typically include the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities”… .

… [T]he alleged contract did not satisfy the statute of frauds, as it did not contain the essential terms typically included in a contract for the sale of real property, including the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities … . Additionally, the alleged contract was not signed by the defendant Michael Israel, and it indicated that several of the properties were co-owned by other individuals who also were not signatories to the document … .

Further, the emails relied upon by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the parties reached a complete agreement were between the parties’ attorneys, and there was neither an allegation in the complaint nor any evidence in the record that the attorneys were authorized in writing to bind the parties to a contract of sale … . Ehrenreich v Israel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06499, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSES OF ACTION TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN AND BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract action brought by defendant home improvement contractor should have been granted because the complaint did not allege plaintiff was licensed as a home improvement contractor:

… [The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the parties had cohabited and shared an intimate relationship over a period of approximately two years, and that the plaintiff had performed extensive home improvement contracting work on the defendant’s residence in Rockland County during that period in reliance on the defendant’s promise that he would be reimbursed for the work following the impending sale of the residence. Claiming that the defendant had subsequently reneged on their arrangement, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien he had filed against the residence, to recover damages for breach of contract, to recover in quantum meruit, and to impose a constructive trust over the residence. The defendant thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. …

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the licensing requirement of CPLR 3015(e) did not apply herein. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he clearly engaged in home improvement contracting work, and he conceded that the cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien could not survive the defendant’s challenge pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. Moreover, the complaint did not allege that he was duly licensed in Rockland County during the relevant time period (see Code of the County of Rockland, chapter 286, § 3), and the plaintiff never disputed that he did not possess the necessary license. Thus, the causes of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, to recover damages for breach of contract, and to recover in quantum meruit should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … .Cunningham v Nolte, 2020 NY Slip Op 06493, Second Dept 11=12=20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the building manager, Synoptic, was liable in this elevator accident case. The elevator was subject to a code violation because a “drop key” was available to tenants which allowed the elevator door to be opened when the elevator cab was not at that floor. Infant plaintiff fell into the open shaft after her nanny opened the door. The contract between Synoptic and the building owner raised questions of fact whether Espinal factors imposed liability on Synoptic:

A contracting party may not be liable in tort to a noncontracting third-party for its negligent performance unless it launches a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating an unreasonable risk of harm, the noncontracting third party detrimentally relies on its performances, or it completely displaces the other party’s duty to maintain premises safely … . …

Whether Synoptic made the repairs itself or was qualified to do so is irrelevant as to whether it owed plaintiff a duty. Rather its duty arises from its contractual obligation under the comprehensive management agreement obligating it to, inter alia, maintain the property and cause needed repairs to the elevator … .

Here, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Synoptic to perform its contractual duties to maintain, cause repairs to be made to, and correct violations regarding the elevator … , and whether Synoptic launched a force of harm by providing residents access to the drop key to use the freight elevator … . According to … deposition, [testimony]  Synoptic had notice that residents were using the drop key to access the freight elevator. Further, at the very least, issues of fact exist as to whether it had notice that the repairs to address the violation were never completed. XX v Dunwell El. Elec. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06376, First Dept 11-5-20

 

,

IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DID NOT SIGN THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT AND DECLINED TO HAVE IT READ TO HER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON, WHO HAD POWER OF ATTORNEY, REFUSED TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; THE FACILITY CAN NOT ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration clause in the defendant residential care facility’s (Richmond Center’s) admission agreement could not be enforced on behalf of plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff’s decedent was unable to sign the admission agreement and blinked twice for “no” when asked if she wanted the agreement read to her. Her son, William, had power of attorney but refused to sign the agreement. The facility therefore could not enforce the arbitration clause of the admission agreement in this wrongful death action:

“[A]n arbitration clause in a written agreement is enforceable, even if the agreement is not signed, when it is evident that the parties intended to be bound by the contract” … . “‘The manifestation or expression of assent necessary to form a contract may be by word, act, or conduct which evinces the intention of the parties to contract'” … . “A party to an agreement may not be compelled to arbitrate its dispute with another unless the evidence establishes the parties’ clear, explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate” … .

Here, Richmond Center failed to demonstrate that the resident, or William as her representative, by word, act, or conduct evinced an intention to be bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement. Since the evidence failed to show a clear, explicit, and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate, the plaintiff may not be compelled to arbitrate … . Pankiv v Richmond Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Specialty Healthcare, 2020 NY Slip Op 06279, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ causes of action for declaratory relief and negligent procurement were properly dismissed but the causes of action for breach of contract and fraud and negligent misrepresentation should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs contracted with Con Ed to work on a gas main and requested insurance coverage for the project from defendants. Well into the project plaintiffs learned that they were not insured and they procured coverage elsewhere for a much higher premium. The declaratory judgment cause of action sought a declaration that defendants would be responsible if plaintiffs are sued for damage done when plaintiffs were uninsured. Because that circumstance may never occur the declaratory judgment cause of action was properly dismissed. The negligent procurement cause of action was properly dismissed because there were no damages. The breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed because nominal damages will support it. The fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action should not have been dismissed because a special relationship between plaintiffs and the insurance broker had been sufficiently alleged:

” … Nominal damages allow vindication of those rights” … . … “[A]ctual damages are not an essential element” of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… “Where a special relationship develops between the broker and client, [the] broker may be liable . . . for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … . “… [T]hree ‘exceptional situations’ … may give rise to such a special relationship: ‘(1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on'” … . … The plaintiffs, at a minimum, claim to have suffered damages when they, on two occasions, made bids for long-term contracts to perform gas main repair work for Con Ed that were priced, in part, based on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations as to the price of insurance coverage for that work. AB Oil Servs., Ltd. v TCE Ins. Servs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR PROPERLY DECIDED IN HOMEOWNERS’ FAVOR; THE CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771(1)(b) AND THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim against plaintiff contractor was correctly decided in defendants’ favor after a bench trial and the damages were proper (with the exception of one mistake). The Third Department noted that the home improvement contract did not comply with General Business Law 771 (1) (b):

The record reflects, and plaintiff does not dispute, that he failed to comply with General Business Law § 771 (1) (b), which requires that a home improvement contract include, among other things, provisions as to “[t]he approximate dates, or estimated dates, when the work will begin and be substantially completed, including a statement of any contingencies that would materially change the approximate or estimated completion date.” Inasmuch as the contract failed to include these statutorily required provisions, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s breach of contract claim as “a contractor cannot enforce a contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771” … . …

The credible testimony at trial established that the work performed by plaintiff was deficient … .

“[T]he proper measure of damages for breach of a construction contract is the cost to either repair the defective construction or complete the contemplated construction” … . Lapenna Contr., Ltd. v Mullen, 2020 NY Slip Op 06183, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DISCLAIMER OF INSURANCE COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS OPPOSED TO A PERSONAL INJURY) ACTION, THE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNTIMELY UNDER COMMON LAW WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurance companies’ disclaimers of coverage of damages associated with the insured’s breach of contract were not timely. The insured county was found to have breached a contract and was assessed nearly $11,000,000 in damages:

Contrary to the County’s contention, while Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) imposes strict requirements on an insurer to give timely written notice if it is disclaiming liability or denying coverage for death or bodily injury arising out of an accident, “[w]here, as here, the underlying insurance claim does not arise out of an accident involving bodily injury or death, Insurance Law § 3420 and its heightened requirements do not apply” … . Instead, an insurer’s delay in disclaiming coverage “should be considered under common-law waiver and/or estoppel principles” … . …

Here, the County proffered evidence that * * * [the innsurers] did not respond [for] 6 months and 17 months, respectively, after they were notified of the subject loss. County of Suffolk v Ironshore Indem., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06099, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, , ,

STRICT FORECLOSURE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE MAJORITY BONDHOLDERS WHICH CANCELLED THE NOTES PRECLUDED RECOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFFS WHO PURCHASED SOME OF THE NOTES IN THE SECONDARY MARKET (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the strict foreclosure at the direction of the majority bondholders which cancelled the notes precluded plaintiffs from recovering on notes purchased in the secondary market. The decision is fact-specific, dependent on the wording of documents, and cannot be fairly summarized here:

After the issuer defaulted, plaintiffs, the holders of a minority in principal amount of senior secured debt, brought this lawsuit against the debtor and its guarantors to recover payment of principal and interest. We are called upon to determine whether plaintiffs’ right to sue for payment on the notes survived a strict foreclosure, undertaken by the trustee at the direction of a group of majority bondholders over plaintiffs’ objection, that purported to cancel the notes. We hold that it did … . …

In December 2005, defendant Cleveland Unlimited, Inc. (Cleveland Unlimited), a telecommunications company, issued $150 million of “senior secured” debt in the form of “Notes” pursuant to an indenture agreement (the Indenture). The Notes had a five-year term and required Cleveland Unlimited to pay interest to holders of the Notes (Noteholders or Holders) on a quarterly basis up to and including the maturity date, at which point the principal also became due. The Indenture named Cleveland Unlimited as the “Issuer” of the Notes, eighteen of Cleveland Unlimited’s subsidiaries and affiliates as the “Guarantors,” and U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) as the Indenture “Trustee.” At the same time the Indenture was executed, the Issuer, the Guarantors, and the Trustee executed a Collateral Trust Agreement and a Security Agreement (collectively, Indenture Documents) … . In April 2010, plaintiffs purchased approximately $5 million of the Notes in the secondary market, amounting to 3.33% of the outstanding principal value.

At issue in this case are certain provisions in the Indenture Documents governing the rights of the Noteholders to receive payment, the remedies available in the event of default, and the power of a majority of Noteholders to direct the Trustee’s choice of remedy. CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v Cleveland Unlimited, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05976, Ct App 10-20-20

 

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