You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the 1992 agreement substituting life insurance for trust assets was covered by Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 11-1.7(a)(1) and the trustee, which owned the policies, was liable in negligence for failing to ensure the premiums were paid (the policies had lapsed). The provision of the trust-asset-substitution agreement exonerating the trustee from liability was invalid as against public policy. The matter was remitted for a determination of damages:

The Surrogate’s Court found that the 1992 agreement created a “new trust agreement” funded in part by the life insurance policies, which was not part of the testamentary trust, and therefore not governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a). The court further found that the agreement released the trustee from any promises relating to “the substitution of property,” which relieved the trustee of any “liability to monitor the investment owed to the trust,” released the trustee and any successor trustee “from any future lawsuit,” and released the trustee of any fiduciary duty to act upon Robert’s default in paying insurance premiums.

Contrary to the conclusion of the Surrogate’s Court, the agreement did not create a new trust. Rather, the agreement provided for the substitution of testamentary trust property with life insurance policies. The petitioner included the life insurance policies in its final account of the testamentary trusts as worthless assets. There is no reference to any separate accounting for the life insurance policies as part of a separate trust. Thus, the duty of the trustee was governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1), which states that the exoneration of a testamentary trustee from liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and prudence is contrary to public policy. Matter of Wilkinson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the law firm defendants demonstrated plaintiff attorney violated the confidentiality provision of her employment contract, the law firm was not entitled to enforcement of the liquidated damages provision of the contract because the law firm did not demonstrate it suffered any damage as a result of plaintiff’s breach. In addition, plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the law firm defendants violated an oral agreement promising her a five percent bonus related to attorney’s fees paid for cases in which she was involved should not have been dismissed because she presented some evidence she had in fact been paid several such bonuses:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation. If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced” … . Although the party challenging the liquidated damages provision has the burden to prove that the liquidated damages are, in fact, an unenforceable penalty … , the party seeking to enforce the provision must necessarily have been damaged in order for the provision to apply … . Here, defendants did not identify to the motion court any damages that they sustained as a result of plaintiff’s breach of the agreement. …

The law firm defendants met their burden on summary judgment by providing plaintiff’s employment agreement which did not include any reference to a 5% nondiscretionary bonus, and which included a general merger clause requiring any modification to be in writing. However, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to this claim. … [T]he Court of Appeals has held that while generally an oral modification may not be enforced in light of a merger clause, an oral modification may be enforced if there is partial performance that is “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” or if one party “induced another’s significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification.” Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00250, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, , , ,

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the verdict in favor of plaintiff employees, determined the sanctions imposed upon the employer (appellants) for a delayed response to discovery demands were too severe and ordered a new trial. The plaintiffs alleged appellants breached oral employment contracts. The appellants in their counterclaims alleged plaintiffs breached their fiduciary duty by violating Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and destroying and replacing handwritten notes about conversations with one of the appellants. The sanctions effectively prevented the appellants from demonstrating plaintiffs’ violation of SEC violations and destruction of evidence:

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” Although “[i]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the nature and degree of the penalty,” “[t]he sanction should be commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and go no further than that” … . Further, “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading . . . for failure to comply with a discovery order is appropriate only where [it is] conclusively demonstrate[d] that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” … .

Although the court here did not strike a pleading, its ruling could fairly be viewed as having done so, since the precluded evidence was critical to the fiduciary duty claims. Moreover, the court’s drastic sanctions were disproportionate to the alleged discovery malfeasance. It is unclear why a short continuance to give plaintiffs time to review the newly-produced documents would not have been a viable option, or why further curative instructions would not have sufficed. The record as a whole does not support a finding of willfulness or bad faith so as to justify the severe sanctions imposed … . No basis exists to indicate that this was anything other than a disagreement over the scope of discovery. Indeed, the court at trial stated that the alleged discovery omissions “appear[] not to have been in bad faith.” Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00230, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendants (the Infiniti defendants) were bound by an open-court stipulated settlement of $8,875,000 in this personal injury case. The attorneys had apparent authority to bind the defendants. And the defendants ratified the stipulation by failing to timely object to it:

I write to highlight the fundamental principle that parties are bound by stipulations signed in open court by their attorneys. The issue arose in the context of a negligence case, where plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while standing on a sidewalk median in Brooklyn. The vehicle was owned by defendant Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc. and driven by defendant Massamba Seck (the Infiniti defendants). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and required extensive hospitalization and multiple surgeries. At issue in this case is whether the Infiniti defendants are bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorneys. We find that the Infiniti defendants are bound, because their attorneys had apparent authority to bind them to the $8,875,000 judgment. Significantly, there is no affidavit or testimony by Infiniti stating that Infiniti, or any of its employees, was unaware of the settlement or that Infiniti did not authorize the settlement. The only ones making this claim are the lawyers from the firm that was hired by the insurance companies to defend the Infiniti defendants. The fact that one of the insurers is now unable to pay its intended $5 million portion does not inure to the Infiniti defendants’ benefit. Rather, the Infiniti defendants are responsible for the portion of the agreed-upon amounts that the insurers do not pay. To accept their position would alter the way litigation is conducted in New York State. Courts would have to conduct colloquies in every case to make sure that the parties, notwithstanding their attorneys’ actions in appearing for them on numerous occasions and signing stipulations, acquiesced in the terms of the stipulations. That is unacceptable, especially here, where the Infiniti defendants never objected to the stipulation until the filing of the instant order to show cause more than a year and six months after the stipulation was signed in open court. Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00229, First Dept 1-9-20

 

, ,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the plaintiff municipality breached its contract with defendant sewage-treatment company. The plaintiff municipality argued that, although there was competitive bidding under General Municipal Law 103 and 120-w, the contract was void because the bid specifications were improperly developed with the defendant and were designed to ensure defendant got the contract, but that argument was rejected by both Supreme Court and the Third Department:

… [P]laintiff provided nothing to contradict the proof that [use of defendant’s technology] served the public interest because it was safer, more reliable and less likely to generate troublesome odors than other technologies.

[D]efendant produced an affidavit from plaintiff’s then-mayor, who stated that the options for sludge treatment had been thoroughly investigated and that the type of equipment offered by defendant would further the public interest by stabilizing plaintiff’s sludge disposal costs, providing an environmentally sensitive means for that disposal and decreasing odors emanating from the WWTF [wastewater treatment facility] that might affect ongoing waterfront development. The then-mayor further averred that the bid documents were prepared by municipal employees and that the specifications included nothing of peculiar benefit to defendant. … Defendant’s president, a mechanical engineer, confirmed that point and averred that “[n]early any sludge drying pelletizing system on the market” could have satisfied the bid specifications. Plaintiff accordingly failed to meet its burden of showing that the 2004 agreement was void, and defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on claims relating to that agreement’s validity … . City of Kingston v Aslan Envtl. Servs., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00192, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

,

DEFENDANT CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER, PURSUANT TO THE ESPINAL CRITERIA, IT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant cleaning service contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Espinal for launching or creating an instrument of harm by mopping the floor without placing warning signs in the are where she fell:

Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). However, there are three exceptions to the general rule … . …

Here, the plaintiff alleged only one of the Espinal exceptions: that the defendant created or launched an instrument of harm. Thus, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant was required to establish, prima facie, that it did not create or launch an instrument of harm … . … [T]he defendant’s submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact regarding the location of “wet floor” signs and whether the wet floor or the signs were readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff’s senses as she entered the area through a closed door … . Thus, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that caused the plaintiff to fall or that it provided adequate notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Ramsey v Temco Serv. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00166, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF AN ORAL CONTRACT REGARDING REPAYMENT OF A LOAN SECURED BY A NOTE AND MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE FRAUD AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ action alleging breach of an alleged oral contract concerning the repayment of a loan secured by a note an mortgage should have been dismissed as barred by the statute of frauds. The fraud and unjust enrichment causes of action must also be dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action:

The complaint alleged that contemporaneously with executing the note and mortgage, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an oral agreement providing, inter alia, that in exchange for assigning a contract to purchase certain real property to the defendant, the plaintiffs would be responsible for paying only the interest on the loan. The complaint, which asserted causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, sought, among other things, recovery of the settlement amount paid by the plaintiffs in the foreclosure action, less the amount of interest allegedly due pursuant to the oral agreement. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.

Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible inference, dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action should have been granted, since enforcement of the alleged oral agreement, ostensibly to modify the note and mortgage, is barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law §§ 5-703[1]; 5-1103 … ). Dismissal of the causes of action alleging fraud and unjust enrichment should also have been granted as they are duplicative of the unenforceable contractual cause of action and thus constitute an impermissible attempt to circumvent the statute of frauds … . Botanical Realty Assoc. Urban Renewal, LLC v Gluck, 2020 NY Slip Op 00099, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT ALLEGATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXPLOIT THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs in this putative class action alleging wage-underpayment in violation of Labor Law article 6 could not be compelled to arbitrate. Plaintiffs were not parties to the contracts with defendants which compelled arbitration and did not seek to exploit the benefits of those contracts:

… [U]nder limited circumstances nonsignatories may be compelled to arbitrate” … . Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits” the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . Where the benefits are merely “indirect,” a nonsignatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate a claim … . “A benefit is indirect where the nonsignatory exploits the contractual relation of the parties, but not the agreement itself” … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs should not be compelled to arbitrate based upon the agreements. The record does not establish that the plaintiffs were even aware of the existence of the agreements or that they knowingly exploited the benefits of the agreements … . Arboleda v White Glove Enter. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00098, Second Dept 1-8-20

, ,

DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant, a sex offender who was found to suffer from a mental abnormality after Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 trial, was not entitled specific performance of his plea agreement, which made no mention of the of potential Mental Hygiene Law proceedings:

Respondent next challenges Supreme Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract — one that entitled him to specific performance. Proceedings pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act “are expansive civil proceedings, which are entirely separate from and independent of the original criminal action” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that trial courts are required to advise defendants who plead guilty regarding the direct consequences of such plea, but they have no obligation to iterate every collateral consequence of the conviction” … . As relevant here, “the potential for either civil confinement or supervision pursuant to [the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act] is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, the current state of the law does not require that defendants be informed of it prior to entering a plea of guilty” … . As such, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s request for specific performance. Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s assertion that specific performance is appropriate because the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 litigation ensued following the expiration of his sentence, as the article 10 proceeding commenced upon the date that the petition was filed, prior to respondent’s release date … . Matter of State of New York v Robert G., 2020 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the exculpatory clauses in the lease which relieved the landlord from liability for the tenant’s lost profits caused by the landlord’s negligence is not void pursuant to General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-321. GOL 5-321 refers only to property damage, not lost profits:

The claim for lost profits, however, was properly dismissed. General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides:

“Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The exculpatory clauses in the lease relieving defendants of liability for lost profits resulting from their own negligence are not void under General Obligations Law § 5-321 because lost profits are distinct from property damage … . …

Moreover, paragraph 23 of the lease amendment specifically provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary . . . Tenant waives, to the full extent permitted by law, any claim for consequential or punitive damages in connection [with damage to Tenant’s property]”  … . In view of this unequivocal exculpatory clause stating that no other provision in the lease shall entitle the tenant to consequential damages, the claim for lost profits is barred … . Chaitman v Moezinia, 2019 NY Slip Op 09396, First Dept 12-26-19

 

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