You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE HE SIGNED WAS INVALID DUE TO MUTUAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF LUMBAR DISC INJURIES AND LEFT HIP DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS “NOT FAIRLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact the validity of the release he signed in this traffic accident case:

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that there was a mutual mistake with respect to the extent of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained must establish that, at the time the release was executed, “the parties were under ‘[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury’ ” … . “[I]n resolving claims of mutual mistake as to injury at the time of release, there has been delineated a sharp distinction between injuries unknown to the parties and mistake as to the consequence of a known injury” … . “A mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release” … , whereas “[i]f the injury is known, and the mistake . . . is merely as to the consequence, future course, or sequelae of [the] known injury, then the release will stand” … . “Even where a releasor has knowledge of the causative trauma, . . . there must be actual knowledge of the injury. Knowledge of injury to an area of the body cannot cover injury of a different type and gravity” … . Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of mutual mistake inasmuch as, despite the fact that at the time the release was signed plaintiff had pain in the cervical spine and left hip and a diagnosis of a cervical strain, plaintiff alleged that neither party was aware of plaintiff’s lumbar disc injuries or left hip degenerative joint disease at that time … .

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that it was not fairly and knowingly entered into must establish that “the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, [or that] it was not ‘fairly and knowingly’ made” … . Again accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that, in the complaint and his affidavit in opposition to the motion, he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of whether the release was fairly and knowingly entered into inasmuch as plaintiff averred in his affidavit in opposition to the motion that, inter alia, he signed the release a short time after the accident occurred, he is unable to fluently read, understand or speak English, he did not understand the release, at the time he signed the release he did not have an attorney, he was not provided with an interpretation of the release, and he needed money for a vehicle in order to attend medical appointments … . Pastrana-Ortiz v Wemple, 2025 NY Slip Op 03425, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for explanations of the criteria for invalidating a release (1) due to fraud, (2) due to mutual mistake, and (3) because it was “not fairly and knowingly made.”

 

, ,

HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver’s (Hafner’s) apportionment of the proceeds of the sale of real property owned by several brothers was inconsistent with the open court stipulation which had attempted to resolve the dispute before the receiver was appointed. Absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, a stipulation (contract) should not be invalidated. Therefore, Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether there are grounds for avoiding the terms of the stipulation:

Supreme Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before approving Hafner’s amended final report and account based on the factual issues raised by the parties and the contentious nature of the proceedings … . “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside . . . Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Here, Hafner’s amended final report and account was confirmed without the off-the-top credits owed to John and Thomas pursuant to the stipulation. Further, the amended final report and account allocated receivership costs for insurance that were inconsistent with the allocation of costs agreed to in the stipulation.

Additionally, a hearing is necessary to calculate Hafner’s commissions and to determine whether special circumstances exist warranting a recovery in excess of five percent of the sums received and disbursed … . CPLR 8004 allows a receiver to be paid commissions for his or her work “‘not exceeding five percent of sums received and disbursed by him or her'” … . Feeney v Giannetti, 2025 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: An open court stipulation is a contract which cannot be invalidated absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. Here the apportionment of disputed property by the receiver was inconsistent with the stipulation. The court, therefore, should not have upheld the receiver’s apportionment without holding a hearing to determine whether there exist grounds for invalidating the stipulation.

 

, , , , ,

THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL; THE DEFENDANT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEEK A STAY PENDING APPEAL; THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, FILED BY THE BANK AT THE OUTSET OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, WAS STILL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE DID NOT AFFECT THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO A GOOD FAITH PURCHASER AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the defendant in the foreclosure action, Yesmin, upon reversal of the judgment of foreclosure and sale on appeal, was not entitled to cancel and discharge the referee’s deed transferring title to a good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property. It is significant here that the defendant in the foreclosure action did not seek a stay pending appeal. The notice of pendency, filed by the bank in the foreclosure action, which was still in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale, did not affect the title acquired by the good faith purchaser:

This appeal raises the question of what effect an extant notice of pendency has on the title to real property acquired by a third party from a judicial foreclosure sale when the judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on the appeal of a defendant to the foreclosure action. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a notice of pendency that was unexpired at the time of the foreclosure sale has no effect on the title acquired by a good faith purchaser for value from a sale conducted pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale. * * *

Once a judgment is entered, the need to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to protect the right to restitution of the property is shared equally by a defendant or a plaintiff against whom the judgment is entered. Where a judgment has been entered against a plaintiff, “the plaintiff’s right to impair the marketability of the property during the pendency of an appeal [is conditioned] upon the issuance of a discretionary CPLR 5519(c) stay” … . Thus, regardless of whether the judgment is issued in favor of a defendant or the plaintiff, once a judgment is entered, a stay is necessary to protect the property, and in the absence of a stay, the winning party is free to transfer the property as it sees fit. * * *

Since [the good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property] established that it is “a purchaser in good faith and for value” whose title would be affected by restitution of Yesmin’s property rights lost by the judgment of foreclosure and sale, Yesmin may not seek restitution by canceling the referee’s deed and, instead, is limited to monetary relief against the plaintiff to the foreclosure action (CPLR 5523 …). Yesmin v Aliobaba, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02964, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action which is appealed does not seek a stay pending appeal, the reversal on appeal does not affect title transferred to a good faith purchaser at the foreclosure sale.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the construction manager, Tishman, was the property owner’s statutory agent in charge of safety at the worksite. Therefore Tishman could be liable for injury to a worker pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

“A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law . . . [§ ] 240(1) . . . or § 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “The label given a defendant, whether ‘construction manager’ or ‘general contractor,’ is not determinative” … . “Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the ‘authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'” … .

Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the construction management services contract, which charged Tishman with, inter alia, enforcing subcontractors’ compliance with safety requirements and taking precautions to minimize the risk of injuries. The contract further gave Tishman the right to choose the means and methods of construction. Although Tishman did not directly supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, Tishman’s safety manager for the project testified at his deposition that he was “in charge of safety at . . . [the] project full-time.” In addition, a foreperson for another trade testified at his deposition that Tishman would correct other workers who were performing their work in an unsafe manner. Under these circumstances, Tishman was a statutory agent of DDC and was, therefore, potentially liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Weekes v Tishman Tech. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02959, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Although a construction manager is generally not liable to an injured worker under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6), here the construction manager was, by contract, a statutory agent of the property owner responsible for the supervision of the work and the safety of the workers. Statutory agents of the property owner or general contractor are potentially liable to injured workers under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

, , ,

HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the holdover rent, which was three times the existing rent, constituted appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty. Plaintiffs are purchasers of defendant’s cooperative apartment:

Defendant seller, who requested continued possession of the apartment after closing for one month, complains that the holdover rent set in the liquidated damages provision of the post-closing possession agreement is grossly disproportionate because, over the course of 30 days, it amounted to three times the amount of rent set for the initial 30-day period of possession. However, “[w]hether a provision in an agreement is an enforceable liquidation of damages or an unenforceable penalty is a question of law, giving due consideration to the nature of the contract and the circumstances” … . The party “seeking to avoid liquidated damages” bears the burden “to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact, a penalty” … .

Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. “[L]iquidated damages clauses that permit a landlord to recover between two or three times the amount of the existing rent or license fee in a holdover proceeding are not ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the probable loss and therefore, not a penalty” … . Moreover, defendant does not account for plaintiffs’ payment during the holdover period of the maintenance and assessment, in addition to the mortgage. The agreement further provides that defendant is responsible for plaintiffs’ costs of administering the agreement, among other things, which were unknown at the time the agreement was signed. Thus, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Sang Min Kim v Bedouet, 2025 NY Slip Op 02875, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here holdover rent in an amount three times the existing rent was deemed appropriate liquidated damages, not a penalty.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE USE FOR THE REQUIRED TEN YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; HOWEVER BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE WAS PERMISSIVE AND CONTINUED FOR 50 YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY ESTOPPEL WERE MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendants’ properties, but did have an easement by estoppel. Because there was an agreement among the original owners of the three adjacent camps to construct, maintain and use a roadway providing vehicular access to all three camps, and because there had been no hostile use of the roadway for ten years, the requirements for a prescriptive easement were not met. However plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by estoppel. The court noted that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to an easement by estoppel:

[Re; a prescriptive easement] … [B]ecause plaintiffs’ predecessors’ use of the extension was permissive, the element of hostility was negated … . Therefore, no adverse use could have arisen until there was the assertion of a hostile right … , which, at the earliest, occurred in 2018. We are presented with a permissive use that did not ripen into a prescriptive one for the time required … .

Yet, these same facts establish plaintiffs’ entitlement to an easement by estoppel … . “An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner’s representation that an easement exists” … . The uncontested existence of the agreement between the parties’ predecessors for the construction and use of the extension, together with the time and expense of not only the initial construction but, also, the continued 50-year maintenance thereof, demonstrates that plaintiffs “undertook . . . action[s] to their detriment in reasonable reliance upon a representation that they held an easement” … . Sardino v Scholet Family Irrevocable Trust, 2025 NY Slip Op 02828, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear illustrations of the criteria for a prescriptive easement and an easement by estoppel.

 

, ,

TENANT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT BECAUSE THE TENANT HAD ALREADY STOPPED PAYING RENT WHEN IT VACATED THE PREMISES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant’s claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment was precluded because the tenant was in default (failure to pay rent) at the time the tenant vacated the premises:

Under … the lease between the landlord and defendant tenant … , the tenant was entitled to “peaceabl[y] and quietly enjoy the premises,” which were in the basement of the landlord’s building, as long as it performed its obligations under the lease, which included the obligation to pay rent. Under … the lease, the tenant waived the provisions of Real Property Law § 227. The premises were shut down in March 2020 under Executive Order 202.7 (9 NYCRR 8.202.7) in response to COVID. At that time, the tenant stopped paying rent. * * *

The tenant is precluded from asserting a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it was already in default of its obligation to pay rent at the time it vacated the leased premises. The law is clear that, in order for a tenant to assert a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the tenant must have performed all obligations which are a condition precedent to its right to insist upon the covenant … . When a tenant vacates the premises after defaulting on its obligation to pay rent, it is deprived of its right to insist upon the performance of the covenant of quiet enjoyment … . By the express terms of the lease, the tenant was obligated to pay rent while remaining in possession of the premises as a condition precedent to receiving the benefit of quiet enjoyment of the premises. Since the tenant remained in possession of the premises without paying rent, the tenant has failed to satisfy the condition precedent in the lease and is thereby precluded from claiming a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment … . 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v E&B Barbers Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02546, Frist Dept 4-29-25

Practice Point: Here, under the terms of the lease, payment of rent was a condition precedent for the benefit of quiet enjoyment of the premises. Therefore the tenant, who had stopped paying rent at the time the premises were vacated, could not make a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, affirmed the arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine:

… [T]he court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondents that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that [the employer] directed petitioner to receive the vaccine by a date certain, that it apprised her that her continued employment was dependent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . Further, the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination did not violate public policy and was not irrational.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

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