You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

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

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE POLICY TO NAME HIM AS MORTGAGEE; ALL PARTIES AGREED THEY INTENDED TO SO NAME THE PLAINTIFF AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO WAS THE RESULT OF A MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE FIRE-DAMAGE PROCEEDS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACTS OR NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to the reformation of an insurance policy and to the payment of the fire-damage proceeds. Through error plaintiff was never named as the mortgagee on the policy:

Plaintiff asserts that reformation of the property policy to name him as the mortgagee is appropriate because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that [all the parties] intended to have him so named and reached an oral agreement to that effect, but that, without their knowledge and because of mutual mistake, the property policy did not embody that agreement. In support of this claim, plaintiff submitted the uncontradicted testimony of [the buyer] and the wife that they were aware of the requirement to have plaintiff named as a mortgagee on the property policy as required by the mortgages and intended to comply with it, that the wife asked [the insurance agent] to make the change, and that she and [the buyer] believed afterward that the change had been made and that plaintiff had become a mortgagee on the property policy. * * *

… [W]e find that the property policy should be reformed to name plaintiff as mortgagee … . Plaintiff’s resulting identification as the mortgagee “creates an independent insurance of [his] interest just as if he had received a separate policy from the company but without any inconsistent or repugnant conditions imposed upon the owner and free from invalidation by the latter’s act or neglect” … . Imrie v Ratto, 2020 NY Slip Op 05986, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE, NOT THE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the provisions in the judgment of divorce, not the separation agreement, controlled father’s child support obligations:

Although the parties entered into a separation agreement directing what the husband was to pay for child support, the subsequent judgment of divorce specifically provided that “the child support obligations of the parties hereto shall be as directed by the [c]orrective [o]rder of [s]upport . . . entered on November 16, 2017.” A conflict therefore exists between the separation agreement and the subsequently entered judgment of divorce. In such circumstance, the judgment of divorce controls … .

Although Family Court was without jurisdiction to modify the terms of the separation agreement (see Kleila v Kleila, 50 NY2d 277, 282 [1980]), the fact that the corrective order of support was denominated as an order by Family Court or that it emanated from a Family Court proceeding does not mean the terms therein are invalid. The parties voluntarily consented to the terms in the corrective order of support. Additionally, there is nothing in the record indicating that the parties disputed any of those terms. Under these circumstances, and because the judgment of divorce specifically stated that the parties’ child support obligations were to be determined by the corrective order of support, we are not of the view that Family Court modified the separation agreement. Sherman v Sherman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05993, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT AFTER IT WAS DEEMED A DEFENSE VERDICT VIOLATED THE BINDING SUMMARY TRIAL STIPULATION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined granting the motion to set aside the verdict in this personal injury trial violated the binding summary jury trial stipulation which was entered into pursuant to Richmond County Summary Jury Trial Rules:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to submit this matter to a binding summary jury trial pursuant to the Richmond County Summary Jury Trial Rules.

In its verdict sheet, the jury found that the [defendant’s] … negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, but went on to assess her percentage of fault at 49%. The jury did not determine whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury and did not award any damages. Upon receiving the jury’s verdict sheet, the Supreme Court informed the jury that “there was no need to go on past” the finding that [defendant’s] negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, and after ascertaining that all six jurors had signed the form, the trial court dismissed the jurors and announced that “[t]his constitutes a defense verdict.”

Four days later, the plaintiff moved, in effect, to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was internally inconsistent, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

As the defendants contend, the Supreme Court “exceeded the boundaries of the parties’ agreement by setting aside the verdict” … . Conio v Talarico, 2020 NY Slip Op 05720, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

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