You are here: / Contract Law
,

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

 

,

COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CONTRACT, QUANTUM MERUIT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs’ complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. The contract between plaintiff, a real estate broker, and defendant, a real estate developer, gave plaintiff the exclusive right to broker sales of luxury apartments in return for a reduced commission rate. The complaint alleged defendant accepted plaintiff’s services for two years but refused to pay after defendant received the benefits of the bargain:

Plaintiffs’ failure to identify in the complaint the specific national real estate sales and marketing agency with which plaintiffs were going to partner, along with the terms of such partnership, is not fatal to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The alleged contract would imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to which plaintiffs would propose reasonable entities and defendants would reasonably accept or reject those proposals … . … As to the start and end date of the agreement, it can be inferred from the allegations in the complaint … . With regard to the identity of the promisor, the complaint indicates that all negotiations and interactions were with defendant Kuzinez. …

The complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to the statute of frauds. As an initial matter, defendants did not move to dismiss based on the statute of frauds and plaintiffs were not afforded the opportunity to address the issue … . Moreover, the statute of frauds is inapplicable here as General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) specifically exempts contracts to pay compensation to licensed real estate brokers, which is the type of contract alleged by plaintiffs.

The declaratory judgment cause of action, which seeks a declaration that plaintiffs have the right to serve as exclusive broker for all residential sales for the subject development, should be reinstated based on our finding that the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for breach of contract.

Additionally, the quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel claims state causes of action. As to quantum meruit, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs provided services to defendants at a reduced cost or no cost, based on the promiseof the oral agreement …. As to promissory estoppel, the complaint alleges that defendants promised plaintiffs that they would serve as exclusive broker and that, in reasonable reliance on that promise, plaintiffs agreed, among other things, to substantially reduced commissions … . Elhanani v Kuzinez, 2019 NY Slip Op 04042, First Dept 5-23-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VALET PARKING SERVICE WITH WHICH IT CONTRACTED IF THE RESTAURANT HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTRACTOR, IF ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLY, AND UNDER AN AGENCY THEORY, THE RESTAURANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the restaurant’s (Dolphin’s) motion for summary judgment in this action alleging negligence on the part of a valet parking service (APV) with which the restaurant had contracted was properly denied:

A restaurant providing valet parking services can be held liable for the negligence of the service whose attendants are alleged to have caused an accident to a third party. This is the case even where the service is an independent contractor with which the restaurant has contracted … .

This duty arises [under Espinal] when there is an ability and opportunity to control the conduct of the restaurant’s contractors and an awareness of the need to do so. Thus, Dolphin cannot assert that it signed a contract with the valet parking service and then “covered its eyes with a blindfold”; rather, Dolphin was required to select a company “with, at the minimum, both appropriate insurance and competent drivers”. Defendant restaurant w … as able to decline to enter into any contract for valet services it felt insufficient, and therefore in the best position to protect against the risk of harm.

Dolphin similarly failed to demonstrate that it did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others or that APV entirely displaced its duty to maintain the valet parking area safely … . Indeed, the evidence showed, inter alia, that the restaurant and the valet service communicated on a daily basis to determine proper staffing. The restaurant, further, obtained parking spots for the valet service to utilize on its behalf. The restaurant informed the valet service in advance of functions so that staffing could be arranged. The parties’ agreement similarly provided that service was provided “as requested” by the restaurant, and that it was the restaurant’s obligation to provide the schedule for each week.

Dolphin may also be liable under the doctrine of ostensible agency or apparent authority and thus estopped from denying liability for an entity it held out as its agent … . Evans v Norecaj, 2019 NY Slip Op 04029, First Dept 5-23-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SURVIVED THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIED, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO THE PLAINTIFFS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE PRIVITY ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION WAS ABSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-sellers were not liable under breach of contract or negligence theories for the presence of mold and mice in a house sold to plaintiffs:

The contract of sale contained language providing that, unless expressly stated, no covenant, warranty, or representation in the contract survived closing. A rider to the contract stated that the defendants were not aware of any mold or vermin infestation in the house. Prior to the closing, the plaintiffs conducted a home inspection which revealed, among other things, the presence of water staining and evidence of water infiltration on the interior of the house. The home inspection report stated that a mold evaluation was beyond the scope of the inspection and recommended that if the plaintiffs were concerned about potential mold issues, they should call a professional mold abatement company to perform an inspection. The report also stated that the need for some periodic general pest control should be anticipated. The plaintiffs did not undertake a mold inspection. * * *

… [O]nce title to the property closed and the deed was delivered, “any claims the plaintiff[s] might have had arising from the contract of sale were extinguished by the doctrine of merger” since there was no “clear intent evidenced by the parties that [the relevant] provision of the contract of sale [would] survive the delivery of the deed”. … Furthermore, “New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” … . …

A simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . …

“A claim for negligent misrepresentation requires the plaintiff[s] to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant[s] to impart correct information to the plaintiff[s]; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information” … . Here, the defendants demonstrated that there was no special or privity-like relationship between themselves and the plaintiffs in this arm’s length transaction … . Rosner v Bankers Std. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, , , , ,

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CONVERSION DOES NOT LIE WHEN PROPERTY INVOLVED IS REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed and noted that a conversion cause of action does not lie where the property involved is real property. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell the plaintiffs, to avoid paying a broker’s fee, arranged to have defendants’ deceased father purchase real property on their behalf. Defendants (the Passalacquas) took out a mortgage on the property (Wells Fargo mortgage), in violation of the agreement defendants’ father had with plaintiffs, which plaintiffs paid off when they sold the property. Plaintiffs sought to recover the amount of the mortgage from the Passalacquas under unjust enrichment and conversion theories:

Here, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the Passalacquas were unjustly enriched, at the plaintiffs’ expense, by the plaintiffs’ payment of the Passalacquas’ debt to Wells Fargo, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the Passalacquas to retain what is sought to be recovered … . To the extent that the Passalacquas contend that they used proceeds of the Wells Fargo mortgage to benefit the premises, that contention involves factual issues not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law by suing to enforce the consolidated note … . Further, even if the plaintiffs are entitled to assignment of the consolidated note from Wells Fargo, obtaining such an assignment would require an action in equity … . The unjust enrichment cause of action is also not barred by the existence of the plaintiffs’ contract of sale with the Passalacquas’ late father … .

Contrary to the Passalacquas’ contention, advanced as an alternative ground for affirmance … , the unjust enrichment cause of action was timely asserted. The parties agree that the unjust enrichment cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). Such a cause of action accrues “upon the occurrence of the alleged wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution” … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the plaintiffs’ payment to Wells Fargo was necessitated by the Passalacquas’ default in making payments on the consolidated note, which resulted in Wells Fargo’s acceleration of the debt and the threat of a foreclosure action. Accordingly, this cause of action accrued, at the earliest, in late 2010, when the Passalacquas stopped making payments on the Wells Fargo consolidated mortgage. Mannino v Passalacqua, 2019 NY Slip Op 03961, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

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