You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY HAD BEEN CREATED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether a constructive trust on real property had been created:

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting his affidavit denying the existence of any agreement with the plaintiff regarding ownership or an interest by the plaintiff in the premises, and denying that the plaintiff performed repairs to the premises. However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of two nonparties who each attested, inter alia, to admissions made by the defendant that the plaintiff was an equal owner of the premises with the defendant. Thus, the affidavits submitted by the parties raise triable issues of fact as to whether the parties, who are in-laws by virtue of the defendant’s marriage to the plaintiff’s daughter and who lived with each other for several years prior to the defendant moving out, orally agreed to a shared ownership of the subject premises, and as to whether the plaintiff relied on that agreement by paying for repairs and expenses on the home for the benefit of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied … . Abehsera v Saldin, 2020 NY Slip Op 04723, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, SEVEN YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED; IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE MUTUALLY REAFFIRMED TO BE VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the prenuptial agreement was not valid and enforceable. The agreement was not acknowledged in front of a notary in 2011 by the defendant. Plaintiff had signed and acknowledged the agreement in 2011. Seven years later, right before the divorce proceedings, defendant had his signature acknowledged and he filed the agreement:

… [W]e conclude that, when an acknowledgment is missing from a nuptial agreement, an acknowledgment and a reaffirmation by the parties is required to cure the defect. To hold otherwise would permit a spouse to act unilaterally to cure the lack of his or her acknowledgment at some later date, and would thereby permit that spouse to choose, based on circumstances that may have changed in ways unanticipated by the other spouse at the time of the initial signing of the agreement, whether to acknowledge the agreement and make it enforceable or to leave it unacknowledged and defective. When the parties mutually sign and acknowledge the agreement, it is clear that they are mutually binding themselves to the weighty decisions that they deliberated on. Thus, in order for the acknowledgment to have true significance and purpose, it must be done contemporaneously with the parties’ signatures or, if the acknowledgment occurs at a later date, the agreement must be mutually reaffirmed by the parties … . Anderson v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04640, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, , ,

THE ORAL STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION IS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the oral stipulation of settlement in this divorce action is invalid and unenforceable. The dissent argued defendant wife was not aggrieved because the parties contentions were resolved by the stipulation which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce:

… [T]he parties placed on the record an oral stipulation of settlement that, inter alia, provided for the distribution of the marital property. Although the oral stipulation contemplated the signing of a postnuptial agreement, defendant wife refused to sign such an agreement. Nevertheless, Supreme Court issued a judgment that acknowledged that the parties had placed on the record in open court an oral stipulation resolving all disputed issues, and that provided, inter alia, that the oral stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the judgment. …

We agree with defendant that the oral stipulation rendered in open court did not satisfy the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3), and it is therefore invalid and unenforceable. “In matrimonial actions . . . an open court stipulation is unenforceable absent a writing that complies with the requirements for marital settlement agreements” … . “More particularly, to be valid and enforceable, marital settlement agreements must be in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded’ … . McGovern v McGovern, 2020 NY Slip Op 04635, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS BEFORE, BUT NOT AFTER, PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED; ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS ORAL, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS UNTIL AFTER PLANTIFF WAS TERMINATED. (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an at will employee, was not entitled to commissions on sales to any account generated by plaintiff earned after plaintiff was terminated. Although the employment contract was oral, it was not subject to the statute of frauds until after plaintiff was terminated:

General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) provides that “[e]very agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking . . . [b]y its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” “Only those agreements which, by their terms, have absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance within one year’ will fall within the statute of frauds” … .

Here, plaintiff was an at-will employee of defendant, and “an at-will employment . . . is capable of being performed within one year despite the fact that compensation remains to be calculated beyond the one-year period” … . We therefore reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for payment of commissions fixed and earned during the course of plaintiff’s employment with defendant … .

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion [for summary judgment] with respect to plaintiff’s claim for “commissions on sales to any accounts generated by [plaintiff] on a future and ongoing basis including post-termination of [plaintiff’s] employment,” i.e., the claim for commissions that would accrue subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment. Although “[a]n oral agreement that is terminable at will is capable of performance within one year and, therefore, does not come within the Statute of Frauds . . . [,] General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) bars enforcement of a promise to pay commissions that extends indefinitely, dependent solely on the acts of a third party and beyond the control of the defendant” … . Thus, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for commissions accruing subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment … . Bermel v Vital Tech Dental Labs, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04666, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

,

QUESTION WHETHER A CONTRACT WHICH IS SILENT ABOUT ITS DURATION WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND COULD NOT BE RESOLVED BASED UPON THE PLEADINGS ALONE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Goldman Sachs’) motion to dismiss the complaint in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The issue is whether a contract with is silent about its duration was properly terminated by Goldman. The issue requires consideration of the intent of the parties and could not be resolved based upon the pleadings:

… Supreme Court failed to examine the surrounding circumstances as well as the intent of the parties in discerning the original intent of the parties …. It improperly determined, as a matter of law, that a “reasonable time” justifying termination of the contract had elapsed and plaintiffs had not made any persuasive arguments to the contrary. In doing so, it relied upon its conclusion that Goldman was no longer receiving a meaningful benefit from the agreement, thus rejecting out of hand plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint to the contrary.

As this is a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), Supreme Court should have afforded the pleadings a liberal construction (see CPLR 3026), taken the allegations of the complaint as true, and afforded plaintiff[s] the benefit of every possible favorable inference. A motion court must only determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations should not be considered in determining a motion to dismiss … . “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Charles Schwab Corp. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04520, First Dept 8-13-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT OFFERED MORE TO SETTLE THE ACTION THAN WAS AWARDED PLAINTIFF AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 3220 in this breach of contract action. The defendant offered $950,000 to settle the action before trial and the plaintiff was awarded about $525,000:

CPLR 3220 provides, in relevant part, that, in an action to recover damages for breach of contract, at any time at least 10 days prior to trial, a defendant may make “a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against [it] for a sum therein specified, with costs then accrued, if the [defendant] fails in his defense.” If the plaintiff rejects the offer and thereafter “fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, [the plaintiff] shall pay the expenses necessarily incurred by the [defendant], for trying the issue of damages from the time of the offer” (CPLR 3220 … ). Here, since the defendant’s offer of $950,000 exceeded the plaintiff’s award of $524,253.92 and the plaintiff rejected that offer, the court should have awarded the defendant its expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in trying the issue of damages from the date of its offer pursuant to CPLR 3220 … . Kirchoff-Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v Dharmakaya, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04468, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

,

THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the 90-day statute of limitation in the contract applied and the breach of contract cause of action was therefore time-barred. The construction contract required an action to be brought within 90 days of the completion of construction:

… [An] “agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'” … . ” [T]he period of time within which an action must be brought . . . should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case. . . . The circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor'” … . “Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … .

Here, the [defendant] demonstrated, prima facie, that the time within which to commence this action had expired inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to commence this action within 90 days after May 31, 2011, when construction was indisputably complete … . Stonewall Contr. Corp. v Long Is. Rail Rd. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04505, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

,

THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA) PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNSIGNED PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

he First Department determined the 1999 partnership agreement controlled and the purported 2004 amendment to the agreement, which was not executed, could not be enforced. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that the detailed statutory scheme of the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RLPA) precluded ignoring the Statute of Frauds with respect to the unexecuted amendment:

By design, the RLPA sets forth a clear separation between general and limited partners. This separation is more defined than the division between managers and members in limited liability corporations. With few exceptions, the RLPA provides that a general partner has the liabilities of a partner in a non-limited partnership. In exchange for a more passive position, the limited partners are generally sheltered from personal liability to third parties who transact business with the limited partnership (see generally, Bruce A. Rich, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 38, Revised Limited Partnership Act, at 317, 334-336). The RLPA’s default requirements of partner consent to substantive changes to a limited partnership agreement helps protect the passive limited partners from actions taken by general partners that might adversely affect the limited partners’ interests. That default protection would be undermined if we were to engraft on to the RLPA the equitable exceptions applicable to the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, we decline to do so. A&F Hamilton Hgts. Cluster, Inc. v Urban Green Mgt., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04440, First Dept 8-6-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ABSENT PROOF OF THE ATTORNEY’S EXPERIENCE AND ABILITIES AND THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should not have awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiff bank in this breach of contract/guaranty action because the attorney’s experience and abilities and the nature of the services were not spelled out:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have awarded the bank attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements based solely on the affirmation of legal services provided by the bank’s attorney. “An award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to a contractual provision may only be enforced to the extent that the amount is reasonable and warranted for the services actually rendered” … . “In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factors as the time, effort, and .skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or certainty of compensation” … . “While a hearing is not required in all circumstances, the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered” … . “There must be a sufficient affidavit of services, detailing the hours reasonably expended . . . and the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … .

Here, the affirmation of services rendered submitted by the bank’s counsel “did not set forth counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation, and failed to detail the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … . Sterling Natl. Bank v Alan B. Brill, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 04418, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

EVEN THOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED, THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CONTRACT PRECLUDED AN ACTION IN QUANTUM MERUIT OR QUASI CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should have been granted because it was time-barred. In addition, the quantum meruit cause of action should have been dismissed because a valid contract precludes recovery in quasi contract:

The defendants established, prima facie, that this action was not commenced within the limitations period set forth in the contract for breach of contract claims … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the period propounded by the defendants.

… [T]o the extent that the complaint seeks recovery in quantum meruit, it should have been dismissed since “the existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter generally precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … . D. Gangi Contr. Corp. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04378, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

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