You are here: / Contract Law
, , , , ,

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

 

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment was not available in this dispute about ownership of land and personal property. Plaintiff alleged that land, personal property and the the proceeds of the timber business were his, despite the fact that the land, personal property and bank account, based upon the documentary evidence, appeared to belong to defendant. There were questions of fact whether a constructive trust had been created and whether defendant had been unjustly enriched:

“The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment. As a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, courts do not rigidly apply the elements but use them as flexible guidelines. In this flexible spirit, the promise need not be express, but may be implied based on the circumstances of the relationship and the nature of the transaction. Similarly, courts have extended the transfer element to include instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in some interest in property, even though no transfer actually occurred” … . Here, both parties concede that they had a confidential relationship. However, it is sharply disputed whether there was a promise, a transfer or unjust enrichment. * * *

“A person is unjustly enriched when his [or her] retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … . Plaintiff claims this is his business, that he worked full time and utilized all funds earned in the business to purchase the equipment, personal property and the vacant land. On the other hand, defendant argues it was their business, she held title to all assets, paid for all assets and debts and paid for plaintiff’s services by paying his expenses, housing and cash. Baker v Harrison, 2020 NY Slip Op 01233, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

RESPONDENT WAS A CUSTOMER OF PETITIONER SECURITIES CORPORATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FIRA) RULES AND THEREFORE COULD COMPEL ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined respondent was a customer of petitioner (LekUS) and therefore could compel FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) arbitration. Petitioner had been sued by FINRA in connection with shares of Cannibis Science, Inc. (CBIS) purchased by respondent and held by petitioner for trading:

The record establishes that respondent was a customer of nonparty Lek Securities UK, Ltd. (LekUK), where he had his account, and was also a client of petitioner Lek Securities Corp. (LekUS), with which he had a series of direct agreements. Under those agreements, LekUS conditioned its provision of depository and execution services for certain trades on respondent’s providing certain representations and an indemnity … .

Specifically, respondent purchased shares of Cannabis Science, Inc. (CBIS) in a series of transactions in 2015 and 2016 that required that the shares be held and sold in the United States. For each transaction, respondent executed an agreement (Deposit Agreement) directly with LekUS pursuant to which LekUS deposited the shares in its account at the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). In each Deposit Agreement, (1) respondent represented that his answers to certain questions were true and acknowledged that LekUS would rely on those representations; (2) LekUS agreed to act as the “Processing Broker” to provide the services of depositing and reselling the shares; and (3) LekUS accepted respondent’s “Deposit Securities Request” on certain conditions, including that any claims by respondent or disputes arising from respondent’s representations in the Deposit Agreement “shall be governed by New York law and subject to the exclusive venue and jurisdiction of the courts and arbitration forums in the City and State of New York,” and that respondent would indemnify LekUS in connection with claims arising from respondent’s representations in the Deposit Agreement or from “the deposit process or the subsequent sale of the securities.”

When respondent sought to trade the CBIS shares deposited with LekUS, he communicated with Michael Mainwald, who was located at the office of LekUS, had a LekUS phone number and email address, and was registered with FINRA as the “principal operating officer” of LekUS.

… LekUS notified respondent that it had been sued by FINRA in connection with CBIS transactions and that LekUS sought indemnification by defendant pursuant to the Deposit Agreements. …

… [R]espondent was a “customer” of LekUS within the meaning of FINRA Rule 12200, and was therefore entitled to demand arbitration. Matter of LEK Sec. Corp. v Elek, 2020 NY Slip Op 01134, First Dept 2-18-20

 

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