You are here: / Contract Law
,

THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE ACTION VIOLATED THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE VACATED; THE VACATUR SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE STIPULATION, NOT MERELY TO THE DATE OF THE RELATED MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this action on the child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement in a divorce action, determined the child support provisions violated the Child Support Standards Act and the required vacatur should extend back to the date of the stipulation:

The Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][h]; hereinafter CSSA) mandates vacatur of original child support stipulations when they fail to comply with CSSA guidelines. Here … the Supreme Court found that the parties’ failure to strictly comply with the CSSA with regard to the deviation from the statutory support obligations vitiated the child support provision of the stipulation of settlement with regard to apportionment of unreimbursed medical costs. … [T]he court improperly determined that the reimbursement of the medical costs and child care expenses was retroactive only to the filing date of the motion, relying on Luisi v Luisi (6 AD3d 398). However, in Luisi, this Court held that it was improper to award child support arrears retroactive to the date of a stipulation of settlement because the party seeking such recalculation only did so by motion in the matrimonial action rather than by plenary action … . Here, the defendant did properly commence a plenary action to vacate those provisions of the stipulation of settlement which pertained to the calculation of the medical costs and child care expenses and, upon vacatur, to recalculate the amounts owed. … Thus, the court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which sought a recalculation of the arrears owed retroactive to the date of the stipulation of settlement … . Martelloni v Martelloni, 2020 NY Slip Op 05197, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that the provision of the “Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Stock” (PSA) which awarded double attorney’s fees if litigation resulted from a breach was an unenforceable penalty. The decision, which includes legal analysis well worth reading, is a complex discussion of the covenant not to compete and the nonsolicitation agreement which is too detailed and fact-specific to summarize here. There is an extensive dissent. With respect to the “double attorney’s fees” provision, the court wrote:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination that the provision of the PSA, which, in the event of litigation, allows for a recovery of double the amount of attorneys’ fees expended by the substantially prevailing party, is an unenforceable penalty. When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms … . Paragraph 10.11 of the PSA clearly sets forth the intent of the parties, two sophisticated businesspeople with the benefit of counsel, that, should litigation arise out of the PSA, the “substantially prevailing party” is entitled to two times reasonable attorneys’ fees. Where, as here, “there is no deception or overreaching” in the making of such agreement, the agreement should be enforced as written … . Moreover, while each party asserted in the Supreme Court, and asserts on appeal, that he should prevail and be treated as the prevailing party for the purpose of paragraph 10.11, neither party contended in the Supreme Court that the double attorneys’ fees provision of paragraph 10.11 should not be enforced. Loughlin v Meghji, 2020 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

,

THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SETTLEMENT OF A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE; THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER’S BREACH-OF-THE-COVENANT-OF-GOOD-FAITH ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMARY CARRIER PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the excess insurance carrier, MetLife, could maintain an action against the primary liability carrier, GEICO, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging bad faith. GEICO  unsuccessfully argued the voluntary payment doctrine barred MetLife from recovering the amount it contributed to the settlement of the personal injury action stemming from an auto accident:

“The voluntary payment doctrine ‘bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law'” … . However, the voluntary payment doctrine does not bar an excess insurance carrier, such as MetLife, that contributed to a settlement of an underlying action from seeking to recover its settlement contribution from a primary insurance carrier, such as GEICO, based on the primary carrier’s alleged bad faith. Despite an excess insurance carrier’s decision to contribute to a settlement, an excess insurance carrier may later maintain an action against a primary insurance carrier for breaching its duty of good faith in defending and settling claims over which it exercised exclusive control, provided that the excess insurance carrier reserved its rights against the primary insurance carrier at the time of the settlement … . An insurer may be held liable for breaching its duty of good faith … , and a primary liability insurer owes an excess insurance carrier the same duty of good faith as the primary liability insurer owes its insureds … . Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05045, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s reply papers were properly considered but plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof that a condition precedent in the mortgage agreement, re: notice of default, was complied with:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the affidavit of the plaintiff’s employee Jeremiah Herberg, which was submitted with the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion and in further support of its motion … . Although “‘[a] party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply . . . , there are exceptions to the general rule, including . . . when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers'” … . Here, the defendant had the opportunity to address the Herberg affidavit in her reply papers in further support of her own cross motion.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Furthermore, Herberg’s affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the plaintiff’s mailing of the notices of default (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McKenzie, 2020 NY Slip Op 05086, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant condominium-board-of-managers’ motion to dismiss plaintiff condominium-owner’s complaint based on documentary evidence should have been granted:

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Board of Managers … (hereinafter the Board) … challenging the Board’s allocation of common expenses, after the Condominium’s first year of operation, in accordance with the first-year budget set forth in the Condominium offering plan. The plaintiff alleged that this method of allocating common expenses following the Condominium’s first year was a breach of the Board’s contractual duties and resulted in an overassessment of common charges to the plaintiff. * * *

As to the breach of contract cause of action, “[t]o succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence 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” … . Here, the Condominium offering plan, declaration, and bylaws (hereinafter collectively the governing documents) utterly refuted the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively established a defense as a matter of law to the breach of contract cause of action. In particular, the plaintiff admitted in the amended complaint that the common charges assessed to its unit since the inception of its ownership have been in accordance with the allocations set forth in “Schedule B — First Year’s Budget,” contained in the offering plan. The plaintiff’s allegation that the Board was obligated to reallocate the common expenses after the first year of the Condominium’s operation, based upon an assessment of the commercial unit owners’ actual use of and benefit from the services and other items covered by the common expenses, is refuted by the governing documents. Those documents do not provide for an assessment of actual use and benefits, but rather, specify that, on at least a yearly basis, the Board will “allocate and assess [the] Common Charges amongst the Unit Owners in accordance with allocations set forth in the First Year’s Budget.” 189 Schermerhorn Owners Co., LLC v Board of Mgrs. of the Be@Schermerhorn Condominium, 2020 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AN ACCOUNTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FAILURE TO TRANSFER ASSETS ALLEGED A CONTINUING WRONG AND PAYMENTS WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD WERE ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting against her sister (Weisel), the sole manager of A & Z, of which plaintiff is also a member. The court noted that the allegation that Weisel did not transfer assets to A & Z alleged a continuing wrong, so payments allegedly owed to A & Z within the statute of limitations period were actionable:

To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered … . …

“[A] fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect . . . barring not only blatant self-dealing, but also requiring avoidance of situations in which a fiduciary’s personal interest possibly conflicts with the interest of those owed a fiduciary duty” … . Here, the plaintiff has alleged that Wiesel is the sole manager of A & Z—which, if true, would impose a fiduciary duty on Wiesel arising out of her position as the sole manager of A & Z … . The amended complaint sufficiently alleges that Wiesel is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, arising out of both her position as sole manager of A & Z and her familial relationship with the plaintiff … .  …

A cause of action for accounting requires “the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest” … . Greenberg v Wiesel, 2020 NY Slip Op 04927, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

THE CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING THE IMPOSITION OF A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST TO PREVENT UNJUST ENRICHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WIFE ENTERED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING PAYMENTS BY HER EX-HUSBAND; AFTER HER EX-HUSBAND’S DEATH HIS CHILDREN ALLEGEDLY EMPTIED THE ESTATE OF ASSETS, THEREBY PREVENTING THE FULFILLMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging the existence of a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff and her deceased ex-husband entered a settlement agreement in which plaintiff would be entitled to certain payments until 2020 and 2023. Plaintiff’s ex-husband died in 2017 and the complaint alleged that all of the ex-husband’s assets had been removed from the estate by the husband’s children making it impossible for the terms of the settlement to be fulfilled:

The purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment … . Accordingly, ” the constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice'” … . ” A constructive trust is an equitable remedy, and may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … .

Moreover, an agreement between spouses, such as the agreement and addendum here, involve a fiduciary relationship requiring the utmost good faith … . Since the agreement and addendum provide that, if necessary, the plaintiff could use the assets of Iannazzo’s [the ex-husband’s] estate to satisfy his obligations to her, and, thereafter, all of Iannazzo’s assets were transferred to the Trust before his death, his estate can provide no relief to the plaintiff and the obligations she is owed pursuant to the agreement and addendum will not be met. The plaintiff therefore adequately states a cause of action that the defendants would be unjustly enriched if the Trust is allowed to retain the portion of the assets now owned by the Trust that would satisfy the unmet obligations of Iannazzo and his estate pursuant to the agreement … . Derosa v Estate of Iannazzo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04917, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH A DEFENSE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff stated a cause of action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract based on an alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the parties’ contract . The plaintiff alleged, in effect, that there was an implied understanding that the defendant would cooperate with the plaintiff’s efforts to legally change the usage of the rental space, which would require approval by the DOB, and, therefore, the defendant’s…  failure to cooperate in legalizing the premises constitutes a breach of contract.

“A party seeking dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that its defense is based on documentary evidence must submit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant either was not “documentary” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) or failed to conclusively establish a defense to the third cause of action as a matter of law … . Twinkle Play Corp. v Alimar Props., Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 04987, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT’S MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial in this Mental Hygiene Law civil commitment proceeding, determined two unreliable diagnoses were admitted in evidence. The matter had been sent back for a Frye hearing and Supreme Court issued a report finding the diagnoses are not accepted in the psychological community:

In June 2013, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of the appellant. Two psychologists evaluated the appellant at the State’s request and issued reports and testified that they diagnosed the appellant as suffering from, among other things, paraphilia not otherwise specified (nonconsent) (hereinafter PNOS [nonconsent]) and other specified paraphilic disorder (biastophilia or nonconsent), with sexually sadistic traits in a controlled environment (hereinafter OSPD [biastophilia or nonconsent] with sexually sadistic traits). * * *

… [T]he record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the State failed to establish that the diagnoses of PNOS (nonconsent) and its successor diagnosis, OSPD (nonconsent), are generally accepted in the psychiatric and psychological communities. The evidence at the Frye hearing established that the diagnoses were repeatedly rejected for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM), and that no consensus on the validity of the diagnoses had been reached subsequent to the publication of the latest edition of the DSM in 2013. There was no clear definition or criteria for the diagnoses. Accordingly, the court erred in admitting evidence of the PNOS (nonconsent) and OSPD (nonconsent) diagnoses at the appellant’s trial. Matter of State of New York v Ronald S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04845, Second Deptp 9-2-20

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO UNPAID SALARY, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 198 AND CPLR 5001 IN THIS BREACH-OF-A-WRITTEN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to salary, prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees stemming from plaintiff’s employer’s breach of a written employment agreement:

Pursuant to CPLR 5001 et seq., the plaintiff is entitled to such statutory prejudgment interest based on the defendant’s breaches of the written agreement. Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s unpaid wages … and the severance wages fall within the definition of wages as set forth in Labor Law § 190(1) … . Therefore, such wages are protected by the provisions set forth in Labor Law § 193 and fall within the ambit of remedies provided by Labor Law § 198 … . * * *

… [F]or the same reasons that the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, the plaintiff also established his entitlement to judgment as a matter law on so much of the second cause of action as sought an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under Labor Law § 198(1-a) … . Gertler v Davidoff Hutcher & Citron , 2020 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

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