You are here: / Contract Law
,

STANDARD PRACTICE OF USING THE SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY OFF THE EXISTING MORTGAGES ON THE SELLER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE CLOSING UPHELD BY THE MAJORITY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE STANDARD PRACTICE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO BE UNENCUMBERED AT THE CLOSING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff seller, over a partial dissent, determined the standard real estate purchase and sale contract incorporates the standard practice of using the sale proceeds to pay off any mortgages on the property, even though those liens are not removed until after the closing. The defendant argued the plaintiff’s failure to turn over the property free of the mortgages at the time of the closing was a breach of the explicit terms of the contract. The dissent agreed. The decision includes a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the standard purchase and sale agreement and the standard closing practice:

Defendant argues that plaintiff did not have a marketable title at closing, as she could only provide a marketable title, as required under the contract, by providing a satisfaction of each mortgage lien at closing. However, this position would necessarily have required plaintiff to pay off each mortgage in advance and secure each satisfaction, and, in our view, is inconsistent with both the contract and the conduct of the parties.

It is significant that the parties used a “Standard Form Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Estate” produced by the Capital Region Multiple Listing Service, Inc. … . Use of this standard form reflects the parties’ intent to embrace the common practice developed over the years in the real estate closing realm … . This common practice with respect to the existing mortgage liens is as follows — the seller obtains payoff letters from respective lenders, the purchaser brings corresponding bank checks to the closing payable to each lender, and either the title insurance agent or the seller’s counsel processes those payments to secure the required mortgage satisfaction … . Within 30 days of receipt of payment, the lenders are statutorily mandated to have a mortgage satisfaction “presented for recording to the recording officer of the county where the mortgage is recorded” (RPAPL 1921 [1] [a]). This protocol is consistent with the reality that the pertinent closing documents — the deed and the mortgage satisfactions — are recorded after the closing (see Real Property Law § 291). * * *

The concluding point is that defendant had documented assurance that the marketable title was being provided. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff duly performed under the contract. Defendant’s refusal to complete the transaction constituted a breach of contract. As such, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ​Prendergast v Swiencicky, 2020 NY Slip Op 02686, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

, ,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-703 GIVES AN EQUITY COURT THE POWER TO ENFORCE AN ORAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT GIVING PLAINTIFFS THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UPON THE OWNER’S DEATH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that the general statute of frauds statute, General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-701, did not apply to the alleged oral agreement to give plaintiffs the option to buy the decedent’s property upon her death. Rather GOL 5-703, which carves out an exception for specific performance of a real estate contract, applied. Decedent owned a two-unit property and plaintiffs rented the second unit. Plaintiffs alleged decedent asked them to care for her in exchange for the option to purchase. Plaintiffs did in fact care for decedent until her death. The executor refused to honor the alleged oral agreement and plaintiffs sued:

General Obligations Law § 5-701, the general statute of frauds provision outlining which agreements must be in writing, contains no explicit statutory authority for a court, exercising its equitable powers, to grant specific performance of an oral agreement insufficiently memorialized in writing so as to satisfy the statute of frauds. Notably, in Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group (93 NY2d 229, 234 n 1), the Court of Appeals clarified that New York has not adopted a judicially created common-law exception to General Obligations Law § 5-701, which would permit a court to direct specific performance of an oral agreement in cases of part performance.

By contrast, General Obligations Law § 5-703, the more specific statute of frauds provision relating to contracts concerning real property, contains an explicit carve-out, which provides that “[n]othing contained in [General Obligations Law § 5-703] abridges the powers of courts of equity to compel specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance”… .

Here, the plaintiffs’ allegations that they entered into an oral option agreement … to purchase the subject property from her estate describe, in sum and substance, “[a] contract to devise real property . . . or any interest therein or right with reference thereto” … , and therefore, this action is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703 … . Accordingly, since the action is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703, the plaintiffs are not foreclosed, as a matter of law, from obtaining the remedy of specific performance … . Korman v Corbett, 2020 NY Slip Op 02637, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this dispute over a lease. Defendant store leased space in plaintiff mall. The lease provided the store could terminate the lease before the end of the term if its gross sales were below a threshold. The store sought to terminate the lease on that ground, but the mall alleged the store’s gross sales did not fall below the threshold. The lease included a liquidated damages provision. The majority concluded the liquidated damages provision provided a remedy at law, the loss of goodwill was not applicable and the balance of the equities favored the store, not the mall. So the preliminary injunction should not have been granted:

… [T]he lease contains a liquidated damages provision that entitles plaintiff to certain money damages if defendants prematurely vacate the premises and cease operations. The lease also contains an integration clause stating that the lease is “the entire and only agreement between the parties.” Thus, because the lease specifically provides that plaintiff is entitled to certain money damages in the event that defendants vacate the premises in breach of the agreement—the very injury that serves as the predicate for plaintiff’s action—we conclude that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and, moreover, that plaintiff has not suffered irreparable harm because the liquidated damages clause was intended as the sole remedy for such a breach … .

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that plaintiff established a likelihood of irreparable injury from the loss of goodwill that would occur if defendants were to cease operations by prematurely terminating the lease. The “loss of goodwill and damage to customer relationships, unlike the loss of specific sales, is not easily quantified or remedied by money damages” … and may warrant a finding of irreparable injury in cases such as those involving unfair competition tort claims … , the proposed demolition or alteration of the premises … , or the issuance of a Yellowstone injunction, in which it is a tenant, not the landlord, who seeks to enjoin the termination of a lease … . No such scenario is implicated here and, moreover, as already noted, the specific injury complained of by plaintiff was accounted for by the terms of the lease agreement. …

… [W]we conclude that the harm defendants will suffer if forced to keep their 6,000-square-foot store open against their will is greater than the injury plaintiff will suffer from the loss of one tenant in the mall, especially because plaintiff may still recoup its loss via the liquidated damages provision. Eastview Mall, LLC v Grace Holmes, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02447, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

,

NONSIGNATORY NOT BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ENGAGEMENT LETTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, noting that Supreme Court should have decided whether a nonsignatory was bound by an arbitration clause and deciding the issue in the interest of judicial economy, determined the nonsignatory was not bound:

Millennium Lab Holdings, Inc. and Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (Millennium Holdings, LLC), pursuant to an engagement letter, retained petitioner KPMG LLP to audit their financial statements for certain time periods. The engagement letter contained a clause requiring arbitration of “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Engagement Letter or the services provided hereunder.” * * *

The parties agree that the only theory under which respondent, as a nonsignatory to the engagement letter containing the arbitration clause, can be required to arbitrate is on the equitable estoppel/direct benefits grounds. We find that petitioner has not met its “heavy burden” … under that theory.

The benefits that the investors whose interests respondent represents derived from the engagement letters between petitioner and nonparty Millennium were “merely indirect” … . Here … respondent pleaded solely common-law claims and did not invoke the engagement letter … . …

Millennium and petitioner did not contemplate that the investors represented by respondent would benefit from the engagement letter. …

… [T]here is no indication in the record that the investors whom respondent represents had actual knowledge of the engagement letters between petitioner and Millennium … . Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirschner, 2020 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-16-20

 

, , , ,

RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (Ferreira) had waived his right to arbitrate his discharge from employment as a teacher pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because he sought an action at law seeking the same relief on the same grounds, as well as damages:

“Generally, when addressing waiver, courts should consider the amount of litigation that has occurred, the length of time between the start of the litigation and the arbitration request, and whether prejudice has been established” … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals has found no waiver where the ultimate objective of multiple procedures is the same, but the grounds urged for relief are discrete … .

Here, Ferreira waived his right to arbitrate because he chose to pursue an action at law asserting virtually the same grounds for relief and remedies sought in the arbitration. His notice of claim, alleging breach of contract, was filed approximately three months prior to his request for arbitration. An action was thereafter commenced, which was still pending at the time of oral argument, and, “[b]y commencing an action at law involving arbitrable issues, [Ferreira] waived whatever right [he] had to arbitration” … . Although use of litigation to preserve the status quo while awaiting arbitration does not effectuate waiver, Ferreira did not merely seek an equitable relief; rather, he sought monetary damages and other affirmative relief as a result of the termination of his employment and petitioner’s alleged violation of the CBA … . Matter of New Roots Charter Sch. (Ferreira), 2020 NY Slip Op 02223, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

 

, , ,

AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A SCHOOL-EMPLOYEE-UNION-MEMBER IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CAN NOT BE LIABLE IN MALPRACTICE TO THE UNION MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the attorney (Guerra) who represented a union can not be held liable in malpractice to individual union members in disciplinary proceedings:

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the cause of action is preempted by federal law … . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the complaint insofar as asserted against Guerra is preempted by section 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act, and that attorneys such as Guerra who perform services for and on behalf of a union may not be held liable in malpractice to individual grievants such as the plaintiff where the services performed constitute part of the collective bargaining process … . Klingsberg v Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm’rs-Local 1, 2020 NY Slip Op 02083, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURER BASED UPON POLICY EXCLUSIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the exclusions in the homeowner’s policy applied to damage caused during Superstorm Sandy. The expert opinion evidence did not demonstrate flooding, as opposed to wind, was the predominant cause of the damage:

The Homeowners Policy contains three exclusions which Allstate has raised here: the flood exclusion, the “weather conditions” exclusion, and the “predominant cause” exclusion. The Homeowners Policy states that Allstate does not cover losses caused by “[f]lood, including, but not limited to surface water, waves, tidal water or overflow of any body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind.” The “weather conditions” exclusion states that Allstate does not cover losses caused by “Weather Conditions that contribute in any way with a cause of loss excluded in this section to produce a loss.” The “predominant cause” exclusion states that Allstate will not cover loss to a covered property when “there are two or more causes of loss to the covered property” and “the predominant cause(s) of loss is (are) excluded” under other provisions of the Policy. Ain v Allstate Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 02042, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, ,

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FALSE ADVERTISING WERE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AGAINST AN INSURER PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES; PLAINTIFF, A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND FALSE MARKETING BY THE INSURER INDUCED HIM TO CHOOSE THE INSURER’S PLAN (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined General Business Law sections 349 and 350 applied to a health insurance plan offered to New York City employees. Plaintiff, a retired NYC police officer brought the action in federal court alleging the insurer (GHI) engaged in “deceptive practices” and “false advertising.” The Third Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to rule on whether the General Business Law causes of action were applicable to plaintiff who was a third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract which had been negotiated by sophisticated parties. The insurer argued a contract between sophisticated parties did not raise a “consumer-oriented” issue:

We have explained that, to state a claim under sections 349 or 350, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct, that is (2) materially misleading, and that (3) the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice” … . Thus, a plaintiff claiming the benefit of either section 349 or 350 “must charge conduct of the defendant that is consumer-oriented” or, in other words, “demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large” … . * * *

Here, although there was an underlying insurance contract negotiated by sophisticated entities—only one of which is a party to this action—neither plaintiff, nor any of the other hundreds of thousands of employees and retirees who participated in the GHI Plan, were participants in its negotiation and, critically, that negotiation was followed by an open enrollment period, which exposed City employees and retirees to marketing resembling a traditional consumer sales environment. During the open enrollment period, the employees and retirees could select only one of 11 previously-negotiated health insurance plans offered as part of their compensation and retirement packages from the City, and the insurers were able to market their health care plans directly to the employees and retirees. Significantly, it is the allegedly misleading summary materials that are the subject of plaintiff’s case—not the contract between the City and GHI, which purportedly was never provided to City employees and retirees. Plavin v Group Health Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02025, CtApp 3-24-2020

 

, ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT; THE CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have ordered the return of the down payment to the buyer (Berman) pursuant to the purchase contract in the context of granting a preliminary injunction. First, by granting the ultimate relief requested Supreme Court had effectively granted summary judgment before issue was joined. Second the criteria for a preliminary injunction were not met. The purchase contract allowed the termination of the agreement and the return of the down payment if three conditions were met. Berman alleged two of the conditions were met and the third was impossible:

Berman failed to demonstrate his entitlement to temporary injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 6301, as he failed to establish any of the three required elements for such relief: (1) likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting of a preliminary injunction, (3) and a balancing of equities in his favor … . …

Berman failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, as the loss of a down payment is not an irreparable harm since the injured party could be made whole by a money judgment … . …

While Berman contends that it was impossible to obtain a Phase II Assessment within the required time, he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in establishing that it was impossible to obtain the report. …

Finally, Berman failed to show that the balancing of equities was in his favor.  Berman v TRG Waterfront Lender, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01902, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

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