You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

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

 

,

CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE A CLAUSE LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY FOR A BREACH TO RETAINING THE DEPOSIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the purchase contract did not have a limitation of remedies clause restricting plaintiff’s damages for a breach to retaining the deposit:

A limitation of remedies “will not be implied and to be enforceable must be clearly, explicitly and unambiguously expressed in a contract”… . Indeed, “[s]uch clauses are . . . strictly construed against the party seeking to avoid liability” (id. at 219), and ” a provision must be included in the agreement limiting a party’s remedies to those specified in the contract in order for courts to find that th[o]se remedies are exclusive’ ” … . Here, nothing in the contract stated that plaintiff’s contractual right to retain the deposit upon defendant’s breach was plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy for such a breach. The court thus erred in granting the cross motion on that ground … . Lundy Dev. & Prop. Mgt., LLC v Cor Real Prop. Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01751, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , , , ,

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE, NOT AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION; SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES TO THE TOWN ENCROACHED UPON THE TOWN’S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the correspondence between the property owner (PCP) and the town concerning proposed construction created an agreement to agree, not an enforceable settlement agreement allowing construction; and (2), Supreme Court’s directing what the town could and could not consider with respect to the construction project encroached upon the town’s administrative authority:

… [T]he letters that the court found to have memorialized the settlement agreement did not contain all the material terms of the settlement and constituted no more than an agreement to agree … . [The town] stated therein only that it was “now in a position to agree to a settlement of the mass and scale issues,” but that first it would “need to receive, review and approve all of the items that it normally reviews in connection with any application it receives.” Any agreement was further conditioned on [the town’s] receipt of additional documentation from PCP, including “an accurate, to-scale site plan” and further roof specifications … .

We further conclude that, in the absence of an enforceable settlement agreement, the court’s hearing on the issues of mass and scale, subsequent decision rendering findings of fact related to PCP’s new application for a certificate of approval, and remittal to [the town] for consideration of that application with specific directives regarding what [the town] could and could not consider were impermissible intrusions into respondents’ administrative domain … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 01812, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, amending defendant’s sentence, determined restitution should not have been ordered because it was not addressed in the plea agreement:

Restitution was not part of the plea bargain, and thus the amended sentence exceeded the sentence promised in the plea bargain … . Defendant objected to County Court imposing restitution … , but the court rejected defendant’s request for specific performance of the plea agreement and instead offered defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, which defendant declined. As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, defendant was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement because he “placed himself in a no-return’ position by carrying out his obligations under” the agreement here, and there was “no significant additional information bearing upon the appropriateness of the plea bargain” … . People v Rosa, 2020 NY Slip Op 01793, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a letter agreement regarding a lease was not an enforceable contract but rather was an agreement to agree:

In a document dated June 27, 2012 (hereinafter the 2012 letter agreement), the parties “consolidate[d] all existing letter agreements to the same expiration date” of February 28, 2015. The 2012 letter agreement also stated that the terms of the lease were “extended to now terminate on Feb. 28, 2030,” with “terms to be determined at the expiration of this initial lease consolidation period.” The 2012 letter agreement further stated that any annual percentage increase in rent will not be less than five percent and will not exceed eight percent. …

A “mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . “This is especially true of the amount to be paid for the sale or lease of real property” … . An agreement is not enforceable as a lease unless all of the essential terms are agreed upon, and if “any of these essential terms are missing and are not otherwise discernible by objective means, a lease has not been created” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a copy of the 2012 letter agreement, which demonstrated that the renewal provision was an unenforceable agreement to agree … . Reis v J.B. Kaufman Realty Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01657, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language of the policy was not ambiguous and could not be interpreted to mean the policy covered a premises at which the insured did not reside:

Plaintiff demonstrated, via defendant’s admission in a statement to its investigator and the investigator’s inspection of the insured premises, that defendant did not reside at the premises and was therefore not covered by the policy … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the policy endorsement that amends the definition of “residence premises” — previously, “[t]he one-family dwelling … where you reside” — to include three- and four-family dwellings without repeating the phrase “where you reside” is not ambiguous. The endorsement also states that “[a]ll other provisions of this policy apply,” which gives effect to those portions of the policy that define “residence premises” as the place “where [the insured] reside[s]” … . MIC Gen. Ins. Corp. v Campbell, 2020 NY Slip Op 01465, First Dept 3-3-20

 

, ,

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined communications between plaintiffs’ financial advisor (KDC) and plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the sale of plaintiffs’ company to defendant were privileged:

It is true that KDC was not retained to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in providing legal advice. However, the unrebutted evidence reflects that KDC spent some portion of its time helping counsel to understand various aspects of the transaction for that purpose. As such, KDC’s presence was necessary to enable attorney-client communication … .

Plaintiffs also had a reasonable expectation that the confidentiality of communications between their counsel and KDC would be maintained. Plaintiffs’ counsel attested that KDC promised to keep all such communications confidential. The governing Purchase and Sale Agreement also specified that all privileged documents related to the transaction would remain protected from disclosure to defendant even after closing … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Cooperation Clause in KDC’s engagement letter did not undermine the reasonableness of this expectation of confidentiality, as it only required “reasonabl[e]” assistance to the Company (now owned by defendant), and should thus not be read to require KDC to turn over privileged documents … . Spicer v GardaWorld Consulting (UK) Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01448, First Dept 3-3-20

 

, ,

THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO FACED DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUITTED AFTER TRIAL; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding back pay to a corrections officer (Spratley) who was terminated by the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) after shooting someone while off-duty. The officer was found not guilty of the criminal offense but was subject to disciplinary action based upon the incident:

… Section 8.4 of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] sets forth the procedures under which DOCCS may suspend an employee without pay prior to the service of a notice of discipline and the limited circumstances under which back pay is owed following that act. Spratley was suspended without pay pursuant to section 8.4 (a) (2), which, in relevant part, authorizes that step for “an employee charged with the commission of a crime.” The same section provides that, where DOCCS fails to serve a notice of discipline within 30 days of the suspension or seven days after learning of a disposition of the criminal charges, “whichever occurs first,” an award of back pay is called for. There is nothing to suggest, and the arbitrator did not find, that either of those conditions were satisfied. … Section 8.4 (a) (5) provides another path for an award of back pay where the suspended employee does not face related disciplinary action and is “not found guilty” of the pending criminal charges, but Spratley did face related disciplinary action. The CBA accordingly contains no provision for the “retroactive” invalidation of the interim suspension and award of back pay under the circumstances presented, and the arbitrator, who was expressly barred by a term of the CBA from adding to, subtracting from or otherwise modifying its provisions, was powerless to add one … . Thus, the arbitrator exceeded his authority in making an award of back pay, and Supreme Court should have granted respondents’ cross motion to the extent of vacating that award. Matter of Spratley (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2020 NY Slip Op 01424, Third Dept 2-27-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE COUNTY, PLAINTIFF SUED ON A NEGLIGENCE THEORY ONLY; THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s negligence claim arising from a contract properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff qualified for the Home Energy Assistance Program. Pursuant to that program, defendant installed a chimney liner pursuant to a contract with the county. Although plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the that contract and could have sued on that ground, plaintiff’s complaint sounded only in negligence:

Plaintiff could have … asserted a claim for breach of contract, but limited herself to a claim for negligence that will not lie “unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . It must, as a result, be shown that defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff “spring[ing] from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … .

In assessing whether such a duty existed, we note that defendants were engaged to install a stainless steel liner in plaintiff’s chimney “in a professional manner.” Plaintiff alleges that the contracted-for work was done improperly and prevented the adequate venting of furnace exhaust. She also alleges deficiencies beyond that work, however, contending that defendants negligently failed to address visible deterioration of the chimney and surrounding roof that allowed water to infiltrate the home and caused mold growth that damaged both the home and the personalty within it. In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff provided the affidavit of an engineer who opined that the obvious problems with the roof and chimney should have been addressed by defendants while they were repairing adjacent parts of the chimney. … It is further notable that the work was paid for by public funds and aimed at helping plaintiff meet her “immediate home energy needs” (42 USC § 8621 [a]), both of which show a “public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care” … . Jones v County of Chenango, 2020 NY Slip Op 01229, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

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