You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, affirmed the arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine:

… [T]he court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondents that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that [the employer] directed petitioner to receive the vaccine by a date certain, that it apprised her that her continued employment was dependent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . Further, the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination did not violate public policy and was not irrational.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add allegations supporting “piercing the corporate veil” in this breach of contract action should have been granted:

“Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, pierce the corporate veil, whenever necessary to prevent fraud or to achieve equity” … . “Because a decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, the New York cases may not be reduced to definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when the power may be exercised” … . However, “[g]enerally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff must adequately allege the existence of corporate obligation and that defendant exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” … . “[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego. In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, [g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form” … . Another factor to be considered is whether the corporation and its owners shared “common office space” … . “A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations” … , and “a fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC v Franklin Exhibit Mgt. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for “piercing the corporate veil” in the context of a motion to amend the complaint to add the relevant allegations.

 

,

THE LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF BENEFICIARY AGAINST DEFENDANT TRUSTEE DID NOT CHALLLENGE THE TRUST, BUT RATHER SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST; THEREFORE THE LAWSUIT DID NOT TRIGGER THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE (WHICH DISPOSSES A BENEFICIARY WHO SEEKS TO NULLIFY THE TRUST); THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit brought by plaintiff beneficiary of the estate (Carlson) against the trustee (Colangelo) did not trigger the “in terrorem” clause in the will and the trust. Therefore the provisions of the will and the trust remained enforceable by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to the real property bequeathed to her. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

The trust includes an in terrorem clause, which dispossesses a beneficiary or other challenger who contests or seeks to nullify the trust. The issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff triggered the clause when she commenced the underlying action against the trustee and thereby forfeited her bequests. * * *

We conclude that because plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks to enforce the Trust provisions as written and intended by the grantor, plaintiff did not attempt to nullify the Trust or challenge its terms. Thus, plaintiff did not violate the in terrorem clause and defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. We further conclude that plaintiff has established her right to summary judgment on her first cause of action regarding her ownership rights to the Premises and her motion should be granted to that extent. Carlson v Colangelo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a lawsuit against a trustee triggers an in terrorem clause in the trust document. Here the majority concluded the lawsuit did not challenge the trust but rather sought to enforce the provisions of the trust. Therefore the in terrorem clause was not triggered.

 

, ,

CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to this action for rent due as liquidated damages. Although the eviction proceeding in Civil Court awarded defendant the rent arrears, Civil Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for the rent due for the remainder of the lease term (post-eviction). Therefore the rent-as-liquidated-damages claim could be brought in Supreme Court:

This action, in which plaintiff seeks the recovery of rent arrears, is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as plaintiff could not have sought relief for its current claims in the Civil Court eviction proceeding. Although the rent arrears claim arises out of the same transaction as the claim for future rent … , res judicata is inapplicable where the plaintiff could not seek a particular remedy in the first action because of a limitation on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff wishes to seek that remedy in the second action … .

The liquidated damages clause in the lease expressly provided that plaintiff was under no duty to mitigate damages by re-letting the premises and further provided that, even if Levant was evicted, it was to remain liable for its monetary obligations under the lease … . However, Civil Court, which determined the eviction proceeding, is “without authority to address a claim for the balance of rent due” as liquidated damages … . Thus, once plaintiff had been awarded judgment in the summary proceeding, the parties’ relationship as landlord and tenant ended and whatever monetary liability Levant may have had to plaintiff at that point “was no longer in the nature of rent, but was in the nature of contract damages” … . Prospect Resources Inc. v Levant Capital N. Am., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02169, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the court which handled the eviction proceedings did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for post-eviction rent as liquidated damages. Therefore the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude the suit for the post-eviction rent in Supreme Court.

 

,

HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the bank’s (mortgagee’s) counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, an equitable lien and an equitable mortgage should have been dismissed. The bank was seeking reimbursement for costs associated with maintaining the mortgaged property which had allegedly been abandoned. Essentially, the Second Department held that the existence of the mortgage agreement, a contract, precluded recovery on the equitable theories, even though two of the three parties did not sign the mortgage agreement:

On September 6, 2005, the defendant Gladys Villa (hereinafter the borrower) executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Ossining (hereinafter the property). By bargain and sale deed dated March 8, 2006, the borrower retained a one-third interest in the premises for herself and conveyed the remaining interest to the plaintiffs, Miguel Auquilla and Hilda Guzman (hereinafter together the owners), as tenants in common. The borrower and the owners allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the note and the mortgage by failing to make the monthly payments due in December 2009, and thereafter. * * *

The mortgagee’s theory that the mortgage agreement does not govern the dispute since it was executed by the borrower and not by the owners is a novel one in this Court, but is ultimately unpersuasive. Although this Court has not explicitly recognized such a rule in this context, we now hold that there can be no quasi contract claim by a mortgagee against a third-party nonsignatory owner of property encumbered by a mortgage, the terms of which covers the subject matter of the dispute. Auquilla v Villa, 2025 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Where there is a contract which binds both signatories and third-party nonsignatories, quasi-contractual theories of recovery are not available.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner, 6810 Wai, was liable for an action by an independent contractor hired to repair the facade of defendant’s building. Defendant operated a bar on the ground floor of the building. The independent contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff, who was entering the bar:

[T]he well-settled general rule provides that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because it has no right to supervise or control the work” … . “An exception to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe” … . “Where, for example, premises are open to the public, the owner has a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress” … .

Here, 6810 Wai failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, as its submissions demonstrated that it had a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. The ground floor hookah bar was open to the public during the construction work, which created a nondelegable duty to the general public to maintain a safe ingress and egress, and, thus, 6810 Wai could be held liable for any negligence of its independent contractor … . Sultan v 6810 Wai, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01966, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The owner of property which is open to the public has a nondelegable duty to maintain safe ingress and egress. Here the building owner operated a bar on the first floor of a building. The owner had hired an independent contractor to repair the facade of the building. The contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff. The building owner could be held liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.

 

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