You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH COVERED PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD NOT BE SUED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE INSURER CUT OFF BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff, a security guard for the School District who was injured on the job, did not have a cause of action against District based upon the long-term disability insurer’s (Sun Life’s) decision to terminate her disability benefits. The District was not a party to the contract between Sun Life and the policyholder. Although the Summary Plan Description issued by Sun Life’s predecessor mentioned the insured rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the District was not obligated by the Summary-Plan language:

… [T]he plaintiff contends that, based on the language of portions of the Summary Plan Description, the District subjected itself to ERISA’s statutory scheme governing appeals from denials of claims. …

An insurance policy is a contract to which standard provisions of contract interpretation apply … . “Liability for breach of contract does not lie absent proof of a contractual relationship or privity between the parties”… . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, the District was not a party to the long-term disability policy issued by Sun Life to a different named policyholder. Even assuming the authenticity of the Summary Plan Description excerpts relied upon by the plaintiff, nothing in the record reflects that the District authored, published, or agreed to be bound by the Summary Plan Description, which, by its terms, did not form part of the insurance policy. Nor do the terms of the insurance policy incorporate the provisions of ERISA … . Arroyo v Central Islip UFSD, 2019 NY Slip Op 04669, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , , , ,

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) OBTAINED BY STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT MUST BE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR GAINS OR LOSSES AFTER THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE AGREED AMOUNT PLUS THE GAINS THAT HAD ACCRUED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement must be enforced as written. Because the stipulation made no provision for the transfer of gains which accrued after the divorce action started, Supreme Court erred by transferring the agreed amount plus the gains:

“A QDRO obtained pursuant to a [stipulation of settlement] can convey only those rights which the parties [agreed to] as a basis for the judgment’ ” … . Thus, “a court errs in granting a domestic relations order encompassing rights not provided in the underlying stipulation” … . A stipulation of settlement that is incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce ” is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation’ ” … . If the stipulation of settlement is ” complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face[, it] must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms’ ” … . Here, the stipulation of settlement clearly and unambiguously made no provision for plaintiff to receive gains or losses on the amount that the stipulation of settlement specified would be transferred to her. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to any gains on that amount that accrued after the divorce action commenced … . Reber v Reber, 2019 NY Slip Op 04557, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) BY RELYING ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE HEARING EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPEND THE PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator in this employment dispute covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) , exceeded his authority by relying on the information in the notice of suspension, as opposed to the hearing evidence, to determine whether the employee, who was suspended without pay, was entitled to back pay:

Respondents’ sole contention on appeal is that the arbitrator’s award of back pay for the period of interim suspension exceeded his authority. We agree. “Judicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited. Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” … . Moreover, “although an arbitrator’s interpretation of contract language is generally beyond the scope of judicial review, where a benefit not recognized under the governing CBA is granted, the arbitrator will be deemed to have exceeded his or her authority”… . Therefore, “if the arbitrator imposes requirements not supported by any reasonable construction of the CBA, then the arbitrator’s construction[,] in effect, made a new contract for the parties, which is a basis for vacating the award” … . …

Here, the arbitrator’s award of back pay for the period of interim suspension was based upon a determination that DOCCS lacked probable cause to suspend petitioner. As relevant here, section 33.4 (c) (1) of the CBA states that “[s]uspensions without pay . . . shall be reviewable by a disciplinary arbitrator . . . to determine whether the [respondent] had probable cause.” This Court has previously held that hearing evidence should be considered by the arbitrator in determining probable cause (see Matter of Livermore-Johnson … . However, the decision makes clear that the arbitrator did not rely on the hearing evidence to reach this determination … . Matter of Czerwinski (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2019 NY Slip Op 04526, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff contractor’s breach of contract cause of action against defendants-homeowners was properly dismissed because the contract to build the home did not comply with General Business Law 771. The defendants-homeowners refused to make the final payment of approximate $39,000 upon completion of the home, alleging the home was not complete and was not up to code. The homeowners’ counterclaim for breach of contract should not have been dismissed because General Business Law 771 applies only to contractors. The contractor’s quantum meruit cause of action was not precluded by the contractor’s failure to comply with the General Business Law. The agreed price of the work in the “contract” was evidence of the value of the work done by the contractor, even though the contract itself was invalid. The matter was sent back for determination of the homeowners’ breach of contract cause of action, and a determination of whether the contractor committed a substantial breach of the contract, which would preclude the quantum meruit cause of action:

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are (1) performance of services in good faith, (2) acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) reasonable value of the services rendered” … . Defendants’ argument centers around plaintiff’s failure to establish the fourth element. In its decision, the court stated that, “[a]lthough there was no direct evidence presented regarding the reasonable value of the work performed, the parties’ agreement can furnish evidence of such value.” We discern no error in the court so holding, as “an unenforceable writing may provide evidence of the value of services rendered in quantum meruit” … . …

… [O]on remittal, should the court find that plaintiff breached the contract, it must then also decide if the breach was substantial, and, if so, plaintiff is precluded from recovering in quantum meruit … . Conversely, if the court finds that plaintiff’s breach of contract was not substantial, plaintiff is not precluded from quantum meruit recovery, and the damages due to defendants for plaintiff’s breach of the contract must be offset by plaintiff’s award … . Grey’s Woodworks, Inc. v Witte, 2019 NY Slip Op 04525, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

PLAINTIFFS BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE HOME BUILT BY DEFENDANTS BY CLEARLY INDICATING THEY COULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE PURCHASE (ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION); HOWEVER, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL AMOUNT PLAINTIFFS HAD ALREADY PAID DEFENDANTS, OVER $220,000, AS DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH, DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs breached the contract to purchase the home built by defendants by a clear expression that they did not intend to go through with the purchase (anticipatory repudiation). The plaintiffs had paid defendants about $220,000 toward the purchase price of about $322,000. After the plaintiffs repudiated the contract the builder sold the property to his daughter fore $269,000. Supreme Court allowed the defendants to keep the entire $220,000 paid by plaintiffs as damages. The Third Department determined the damages were excessive in ordered a trial to determine the appropriate amount of damages:

Having determined that plaintiffs breached the contract, the issue distills to whether Supreme Court correctly determined that, as a result thereof, they forfeited, as a matter of law, the $222,241 in payments made to defendants prior to their cancellation of the contract. Defendants argue that we must apply the well-settled rule set forth by the Court of Appeals over a century ago in Lawrence v Miller (86 NY 131 [1881]), which was later reaffirmed in Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo (68 NY2d 373 [1986]), “that a vendee who defaults on a real estate contract without lawful excuse[ ] cannot recover his or her down payment” … . However, we find that forfeiture of the payments made by plaintiffs in this case, which constitute approximately 69% of the total contract amount, represents, on its face, a damages award disproportionally higher than the actual damages incurred by defendants … , such that defendants have failed to establish, as a matter of law, their entitlement to a damages award equivalent to all payments made by plaintiffs  … . Accordingly, Supreme Court should have denied this portion of defendants’ motion. As a result, a trial is required to determine the appropriate amount of defendants’ damages. Burns v Reiser Bros., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04522, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation entered by plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord, pursuant to a Yellowstone Injunction, should not have modified by the judge. The defendant landlord notified plaintiff of several alleged defaults under the lease, and subsequently notified tenant of the termination of the lease. Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and moved for a Yellowstone injunction which the court ordered. The parties entered a so-ordered stipulation requiring plaintiff tenant to pay over $100,000 per month for use and occupancy of the property during the court proceedings. More than a year later plaintiff tenant moved to move to modify the stipulation to reduce the monthly use and occupancy payments and the court reduced the payments to zero:

The so-ordered November 2015 stipulation was negotiated by the parties and accepted by the Supreme Court, and, as a result, may be considered a court order … . “Although the Supreme Court retains inherent discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice, [a] court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgment is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud], mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … . Nevertheless, “[u]nder almost any given state of facts, where to enforce a stipulation would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage, courts will afford relief” … . …

Although the landlord generally has the burden of proving the amount owed by the tenant … , here, it was the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion to modify the “September 22, 2015 order, as amended,” to demonstrate that the payment of use and occupancy in the amount of $111,041.66 per month was unjust.

In concluding that the subject property had no value “as long as the Notice of Default remains on the property,” the Supreme Court erroneously considered the value to the plaintiff of using and occupying the subject property after the lease was purportedly terminated, instead of considering the fair market rental value of the subject property, namely, the amount that a prospective commercial tenant would be willing to pay to lease the subject property from the defendant … . 255 Butler Assoc., LLC v 255 Butler, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04344, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this toxic tort case was properly denied. Plaintiff, an evening cleaner in an office building, allege she was injured by inhaling toxic fumes from a paint stripping product used by a defendant’s subcontractor (Island Painting):

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the premises in time to take corrective measures … . Defendant submitted no evidence with respect to notice. However, there is evidence in the record that defendant had superintendents on site who oversaw the subcontractors’ work and that defendant had a duty to notify and warn the building owner and its occupants of hazardous work undertaken on the project site so as to safeguard the building’s occupants against exposure to such hazards. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant knew of the scheduled use of the paint stripper and of the product’s toxicity and yet failed to warn the building owner and occupants to prevent harm to them. These issues of fact as to negligence also preclude summary judgment in defendant’s favor on its claim for contractual indemnification by Island Painting … . Arias v Recife Realty Co., N.V., 2019 NY Slip Op 04269, First Dept 5-30-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not submit proof it had the financial ability to close:

“A plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform his or her obligations under the contract” … . “[C]onclusory assertions that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform, are insufficient to satisfy this burden” … .

“When a purchaser submits no documentation or other proof to substantiate that it had the funds necessary to purchase the property, it cannot prove, as a matter of law, that it was ready, willing, and able to close” … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment on a complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must submit evidence demonstrating its financial ability to purchase the property, and in the absence of such evidence, the motion must be denied … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property. More specifically, the conclusory assertions of Gavriel Yakubov, the alleged sole member of the plaintiff, that he had always been, and remained, ready, willing, and able to close, absent any evidence demonstrating the plaintiff’s financial ability to close, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property … . GLND 1945, LLC v Ballard, 2019 NY Slip Op 04143, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS DID NOT FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer to offer a work-training program, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who tripped and fell over extension cord wires during the training session. The only Espinal exception alleged was that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, which was deemed inapplicable by the Second Department. The alleged failure to eliminate the tripping hazard was not actionable:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

… The Supreme Court’s determination that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant negligently failed to correct the alleged tripping hazard amounts to a finding that the defendant may have merely failed to become “an instrument for good,” which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party … . Espeleta v Synergy Resources, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04138, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

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