You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant-purchasers’ motion to dismiss the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement was property granted. The agreement was subject to attorney approval and defendants’ attorney disapproved the contract either seven or nine days after the agreement was executed. There was no time-limit for attorney approval in the agreement, and seven or nine days were deemed a reasonable time:

… [T]he defendants established their entitlement to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). “On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Moreover, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the motion should not be granted unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

The evidentiary material submitted by the defendants in support of their motion demonstrated that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence conclusively established that the purchase agreement was unenforceable because it was subject to attorney approval, which was not given by the defendants’ attorney. As the purchase agreement contained no time limit within which approval was required “a reasonable time for cancellation thereunder is implied” … . Whether, as acknowledged by the defendants, it was seven days after the parties entered into the purchase agreement that the defendants’ attorney disapproved it, or as alleged by the plaintiff, it was nine days after the parties entered into the purchase agreement that the defendants’ attorney disapproved it, the time between the parties entering into the agreement and the disapproval was minimal, during which no prejudice would inure to the plaintiff, and was a reasonable time period as a matter of law. Makris v Boylan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06598, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, because a fraudulent conveyance action does not require an intent to defraud, the specificity requirements in the CPLR for pleading a fraud cause of action do not apply. Here plaintiff alleged the defective design and construction of a condominium:

Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, a conveyance that renders the conveyor insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent, if the conveyance was made without fair consideration (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 …). Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 274, a conveyance is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent when it is “made without fair consideration when the person making it is engaged or is about to engage in a business or transaction for which the property remaining in his [or her] hands after the conveyance is an unreasonably small capital” … . Section 270 of the Debtor and Creditor Law defines “creditor” as any “person having any claim, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, absolute, fixed, or contingent.”

Here, the complaint’s fifth cause of action sufficiently states cognizable claims alleging fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274. Since valid claims of violations of Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 do not require proof of actual intent to defraud, such claims are not required to be pleded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . Further, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that it is a creditor of the sponsor since it asserted a breach of contract cause of action against the sponsor, even though said cause of action was unmatured at the time of the alleged conveyances … . Board of Mgrs. of E. Riv. Tower Condominium v Empire Holdings Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06587, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ITS STANDING, ITS COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE, OR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RPAPL, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it presented: (1) insufficient proof of standing; (2) insufficient proof of compliance with the notice provisions of the mortgage; and (3) insufficient proof of compliance with the RPAPL notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its standing because it did not show that it was a holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. The affidavits of Melissa Guillote and Myrna Moore, both vice presidents of loan documentation of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, nonparty Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter the loan servicer), that were submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, conflict as to whether the plaintiff or the loan servicer possessed the note on the date the action was commenced. Moreover, neither affidavit attaches any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note endorsed in blank prior to the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). The affidavits also fail to show that either Guillote or Moore possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note prior to commencement of the action. …

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the conditions precedent contained in sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage, which provide that required notice to the defendants is considered given when it is mailed by first class mail or when it is actually delivered to the defendants’ notice address if sent by any other means … . …

The plaintiff also failed to show, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Proper service of the RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendants as prescribed by the statute … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Dubose, 2019 NY Slip Op 06481, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE INSURED SHORTLY AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE INSURED’S HOME REQUESTING THAT THE INSURED NOTIFY HER INSURER, THE INSURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL IT RECEIVED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; THE INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ON THE GROUND IT HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY NOTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant insurance company (State Farm) properly disclaimed coverage on the ground it was not notified of the underlying incident (plaintiff was injured in an altercation in the insured’s home) until six months after it occurred. Plaintiff was awarded $715,000 after a non-jury trial. Plaintiff then brought a declaratory judgment action against State Farm:

By letter dated October 31, 2007, the plaintiffs’ counsel requested that [defendant] direct her insurance carrier to contact the plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss the subject occurrence. …

In February 2008, the injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced a personal injury action (hereinafter the underlying action) against, among others, [the insured] to recover damages arising from the September 2007 occurrence. On or about March 13, 2008, State Farm received a copy of the summons and complaint filed in the underlying action. By letter dated April 3, 2008, State Farm disclaimed coverage to [the insured] on the ground, among others, that notice of the occurrence was untimely. …

“[A]n insurer has the right to demand that it be notified of any loss or accident that is covered under the terms of the insurance policy. The purpose of such a requirement is to afford the insurer an opportunity to protect itself by, for example, investigating claims soon after the underlying events” … . Where, as here, an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence or loss be given “as soon as practicable,” such notice constitutes a condition precedent to coverage, and notice must be provided within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances … . “Where there is no excuse or mitigating factor, the issue [of reasonableness] poses a legal question for the court, rather than an issue for the trier of fact” … . …

… State Farm established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that it is not obligated to pay the judgment in the underlying action by demonstrating that it did not receive notice of the occurrence giving rise to the underlying action until approximately six months after the occurrence … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, including as to whether they made a reasonably diligent effort to ascertain the identity of [defendant’s] insurer … . Henaghan v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06480, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice of default provision in the mortgage. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . PNMAC Mtge. Opportunity Fund Invs., LLC v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 06523, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

TWO YOUNG MEN DID NOT REALIZE THE CONCRETE THEY WERE MOVING WAS A CESSPOOL COVER; ONE FELL IN AND THE OTHER JUMPED IN TO RESCUE HIM; BOTH DIED FROM CHEMICAL ASPHYXIATION; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE COVER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE CESSPOOL CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THE RESCUE ATTEMPT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the property owner (Cruzate) was negligent and whether the cesspool contractor (Port Jefferson) launched an instrument of harm. Two young men were planning to build a campfire in the backyard of a rental property owned by Cruzate. The men did not realize the pieces of concrete they decided to move were cesspool covers. One of the men (Fuentes) fell in, the other (Castro) jumped in to rescue him. Both were asphyxiated by chemicals that had been added when the cesspool was serviced:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the cesspool cover was in a defective condition because Port Jefferson Cesspool had improperly replaced it after servicing the cesspool, enabling Suarez to get his fingers underneath the cover and lift it … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his expert, who opined that, on the date of the accident, the cover was not secure to the ground. According to the expert, there was soil between the cover and the cesspool, so that the cover did not rest firmly on the cesspool, which was a substantial factor in the deaths of Castro and Fuentes. Moreover, Cruzate testified that he hired Port Jefferson Cesspool to service the cesspool, supervised the work, observed Port Jefferson Cesspool lift the cesspool cover, and was present when the work was completed. Therefore, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Cruzate had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the cesspool cover … . …

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Port Jefferson Cesspool launched a force of harm and created a dangerous condition by improperly replacing the cement cover after servicing the cesspool (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136). The plaintiff’s expert opined, as discussed above, that there was soil between the cover and the cesspool, so that the cover did not rest firmly on the cesspool, and that this was a substantial factor in the deaths of Castro and Fuentes. …

… [T]he fact that Castro decided to jump into the cesspool in an attempt to save his friend does not necessarily act as a bar to recovery. In 1921, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, established that, with regard to the principle of foreseeability, “[d]anger invites rescue. . . . The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is also a wrong to his rescuer” (Wagner v International Ry. Co., 232 NY at 180 … ) this principle applies where “the actions of the injured person were reasonable in view of the emergency situation,” that is, where the rescuer “acted as a reasonably prudent person would act in the same situation, even if it later appears that the rescuer did not make the safest choice or exercise the best judgment” … . Calderon v Cruzate, 2019 NY Slip Op 06377, Second Detp 8-28-19

 

DEFENDANTS BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY TERMINATING IT WITHOUT GIVING PLAINTIFF THE TIME TO CURE DEFICIENCIES CALLED FOR IN THE CONTRACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants should not have terminated plaintiff’s contract to install a heating system without giving plaintiff the time to cure deficiencies called for by the contract:

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing that defendants failed to follow the termination for cause procedures in the contract when they, inter alia, did not provide plaintiff seven days to cure deficiencies before terminating the contract, and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto … . “Where a contract provides that a party must fulfill specific conditions precedent before it can terminate the agreement, those conditions are enforced as written and the party must comply with them” … . Here, defendants’ failure to allow plaintiff the requisite time to cure before terminating the contract rendered defendants’ termination wrongful, and therefore the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion with respect to liability on the breach of contract cause of action … . Black Riv. Plumbing, Heating & A.C., Inc. v Board of Educ. Thousand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 06321, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DROWNING CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DIED AFTER GOING OVER A SUBMERGED DAM; ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WAS NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE DAM UNDER AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BOARD OWNED THE DAM (A DANGEROUS CONDITION); THE BOARD IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined soil the soil conservation and watershed board’s motion for summary judgment in this wrongful death case was properly denied. The board operated and maintained a dam pursuant to a contract with a federal agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The dam was submerged and plaintiff’s decedent sustained drowning injuries which led to his death after he waded into the water and went over the dam. Supreme Court should not have held that the board had entirely displaced the NRCS responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the dam (and therefore was liable under contract pursuant the third Espinal exception). However the board did not demonstrate it did not own the dam and summary judgment was properly denied on that ground. In addition the board was separate and distinct from the conservation districts. So granting summary judgment to the districts did not require the same relief for the board. Finally the court noted that the assumption of risk doctrine applies only to sporting events and had no applicability to these facts:

… “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 138) although, as relevant here, the third exception to that rule applies where the contracting party has “entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . * * * We … conclude that “the contract between [the Board] and the [NRCS] was not so comprehensive and exclusive that it entirely displaced the [NRCS’s] duty to maintain the premises safely, such that [the Board] owed a duty to [decedent]” … . …

While the Board established that it did not own the creek or the banks adjacent thereto … , its submissions are insufficient to establish as a matter of law that it did not own the subject dam, which allegedly constituted and created the dangerous condition … .

The Court of Appeals has made clear that, “[a]s a general rule, application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases appropriate for absolution of duty, such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, decedent was not engaging in a sporting event or recreative activity that was sponsored or otherwise supported by the Board, nor was he wading and swimming at a designated venue … . Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 06343, 8-22-19

 

, , ,

ARBITRATION AWARD TERMINATING SCHOOL PRINCIPAL FOR ALCOHOL ABUSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the arbitration award which terminated petitioner’s employment as a school principal for alcohol abuse. The school district had entered a “last chance” agreement with petitioner, which, the Fourth Department held, was not rendered unenforceable by the district’s commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. The court explained the criteria applied to review of arbitration awards:

Education Law § 3020-a (5) permits judicial review of a hearing officer’s decision but expressly provides that “the court’s review shall be limited to grounds set forth in” CPLR 7511. “An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . Where, as here, the parties are “subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny—it must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious’ ” … , and “it must be in accord with due process” … . Here, petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that the conduct findings were invalid … . Indeed, the record establishes that those findings were rational, had evidentiary support, and were not arbitrary and capricious, impermissibly based on uncharged conduct, or otherwise improper … . Matter of Bender (Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist.), 2019 NY Slip Op 06297, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , , , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION OR PRIMA FACIE TORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, the assignee of no-fault benefits, did not state valid causes of action against the insurer for breach of contract, negligent hiring and supervision, and prima facie tort. The claims were paid by the defendant and plaintiff alleged flaws and delays in the processing of the claims:

The amended complaint, however, failed to identify the specific insurance contracts that plaintiff had performed services under or the contract provisions that defendant allegedly breached. Inasmuch as bare legal conclusions without factual support are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, we conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. …

Although “[a]n employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act”… , the amended complaint failed to allege that the acts of defendant’s employees were committed independent of defendant’s instruction or outside the scope of employment … . …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, the amended complaint alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intentionally caused harm to plaintiff by requesting verifications and examinations under oath. Those conclusory allegations, however, failed to state that defendant had ” a malicious [motive] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of [plaintiff]’ ” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of [a prima facie tort] cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … . Medical Care of W. N.Y. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06243, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

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