You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

HERE THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN THE ORIGINAL DEED DIVIDING THE PROPERTY INTO EIGHT PARTS WAS A VALID DEFENSE TO THE PARTITION ACTION; HOWEVER, IF DEEMED TO RUN WITH THE LAND, THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the right of first refusal in the original deed which divided the property into eight parts was a valid defense to the partition action. However the right of first refusal could not be enforced because it violated the rule against perpetuities:

A right of first refusal . . . is a preemptive or contractual right to ‘receive an offer'” … . “[I]t is a restriction on the power of one party to sell without first making an offer of purchase to the other party upon the happening of a contingency” … . A reasonable, valid, and enforceable right of first refusal constitutes a good defense to a partition action … . However, with narrow exceptions not applicable here, rights of first refusal are subject to the rule against perpetuities and are thus invalid if it is possible for the future interests they represent to vest outside the prescribed time period (see EPTL 9-1.1[b] …).

Here, the 1966 deed demonstrates that the right of first refusal was for the benefit of the original grantees only … . Moreover, to the extent that the surrounding circumstances demonstrate an intent that the covenant should run with the land … , the restriction would violate the rule against perpetuities (see EPTL 9-1.1[b]…). Block 865 Lot 300, LLC v Baione, 2024 NY Slip Op 04189, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: A right of first refusal in a deed is a valid defense to a partition action.

Practice Point: Here the right of first refusal in the original deed applied only to the original grantees and, if deemed a covenant which runs with the land, it violated the rule against perpetuities.

 

, ,

THE LEASE FOR THE LAND WHERE PLAINTIFF PLANTED CROPS HAD A MUTUAL 90-DAY TERMINATION PROVISION WHICH DEFENDANTS EXERCISED; DEFENDANTS THEN DESTROYED THE CROPS MONTHS BEFORE THEY COULD BE HARVESTED; PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONVERSION BASED UPON THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND THE THEORY OF EMBLEMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a partial dissent, determined the complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract and conversion. Plaintiffs leased land from defendants to grow crops. There was a provision in the lease allowing termination upon 90 days notice. Plaintiffs alleged they planted crops in the fall of 2019 which could not be harvested until the fall of 2020. Defendants elected to terminate the contract effective May 2020. In May 2020 defendants entered the land and destroyed the crops with herbicide: The Third Department found that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements should be harmonized with the termination provision:

… [T]he purpose of the lease agreement was clear and, since both parties were aware that the land was to be used to seed, maintain and harvest the crops[*3], defendants were under a contractual duty to allow plaintiffs to fulfill this purpose under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . Against this backdrop, both parties had the express right to terminate the lease agreement with 90 days’ notice. Therefore, plaintiffs’ right of possession would extinguish upon rightful termination and, as such, without an express or implied obligation, plaintiffs would be unable to recover on a breach of contract theory … . However, given the nature of the agricultural lease agreement, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements must be harmonized with the mutual termination provision. * * *

… [G]iven the purpose of the lease agreement as well as the early termination provision, the doctrine of emblements created an implied contractual term granting plaintiffs a right of reentry to harvest their crops in the event that defendants exercised the early termination provision. * * *

… [P]laintiffs have adequately alleged a possessory interest in the … crops because, under the doctrine of emblements, they retained a right to harvest and take away those crops after defendants terminated their tenancy early … . Together with plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants destroyed the cereal crops, plaintiffs’ conversion cause of action was improperly dismissed … . Van Amburgh v Boadle, 2024 NY Slip Op 04168, Third Dept 8-8-24

Practice Point: Here, although the land-lease for crop-growing included a mutual 90-day termination provision, the exercise of the termination provision must be harmonized with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements. Because defendants terminated the lease before plaintiffs could harvest the crops, the complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract and conversion.​

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF BASED UPON THE MUNICIPALITY’S LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT SALT APPLIED TO MELT ICE CREATED A POOL OF WATER WHICH FROZE AND CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality, which had contracted with the school district to provide salting services, owed plaintiff a duty based upon the municipality’s launching an instrument of harm. It was alleged the defendant municipality’s use of salt to melt ice resulted in a frozen pool of water where plaintiff slipped and fell:

… [P]laintiffs submitted the affidavit of an expert, who opined that defendants’ use of sodium chloride (rock salt) created a dangerous condition and launched a force of harm because the rock salt would have caused water to flow and pool near the area where plaintiff fell. The expert further opined that, due to the temperatures on the date of the incident, the pooled water near the area of plaintiff’s fall would have refrozen quickly, thereby creating the alleged dangerous condition … . Plaintiffs also submitted the deposition testimony of defendants’ employee, who confirmed that during wintertime, when the temperature can fluctuate above and below freezing, water could accumulate in the parking lot where plaintiff fell, and that the accumulated water could then freeze when the temperature went below freezing … . We conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised a triable issue of fact whether defendants assumed a duty of care to plaintiff by launching the force or instrument of harm. Kirschler v Village of N. Collins, 2024 NY Slip Op 03977, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the municipality entered a contract with the school district to salt the parking lot and other areas. There was a question of fact whether the application of salt launched an instrument of harm (forming a pool of water which froze causing plaintiff’s fall) thereby creating a duty owed plaintiff.

 

,

THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was not for the “sale of goods” and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

Plaintiff and defendant signed a one-page “independent contractor and consultant” contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to sell certain minimum amounts of concrete on behalf of defendant (minimum) in return for monthly payments. During the term of the contract, defendant ceased making its monthly payments to plaintiff and terminated the contract, claiming that plaintiff had sold less than 10% of the minimum and failed to provide defendant with an adequate assurance that it could sell the remaining quantity by the end of the contract term. * * *

The dispositive issue before this Court is whether defendant was justified in demanding “adequate assurance of due performance” from plaintiff pursuant to UCC 2-609 (1). If article 2 of the UCC applies and if “adequate assurance is not forthcoming, repudiation is deemed confirmed, and the nonbreaching party is allowed to take reasonable actions as though a repudiation had occurred” … . Article 2 of the UCC applies only to agreements that are “predominantly . . . for the sale of goods, as opposed to the furnishing of services” … . “In determining whether a contract is for the sale of property or services the main objective sought to be accomplished by the contracting parties must be looked for” … .

Here, plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion of establishing that the contract was not predominately for the sale of goods. Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff agreed to provide services to defendant, i.e., to sell the concrete. The contract did not require plaintiff to purchase any products from defendant. Plaintiff therefore demonstrated that the UCC did not apply here, that defendant did not have the right to demand adequate assurance of performance … . Dreamco Dev. Corp. v Cranesville Block Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03937, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The first question to ask in a breach of contract action is whether the contract is for the “sale of goods.” If not, the UCC does not apply.

 

,

THE DENTISTS’ FEE-SPLITTING AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE EDUCATION LAW; A COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking to enforce an illegal contract should have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff entered into an asset purchase agreement (hereinafter the APA) to sell certain assets of its dental practice to the defendant, a licensed dentist who retained his own separate practice. The APA specified a purchase price of $250,000. A portion of that amount was to be paid as a percentage of the monthly revenue generated by the plaintiff’s practice or, under certain conditions, a percentage of the revenue generated from a potential sale of the defendant’s separate practice. * * *

The defendant established his entitlement to dismissal of the causes of action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). As the defendant correctly contends, the APA constituted a voluntary prospective arrangement for the splitting of fees in violation of the Education Law because it required the defendant to pay the plaintiff a percentage of revenue generated by the plaintiff’s practice and, under certain conditions, the defendant’s own separate dental practice (see Education Law §§ 6509-a, 6530[19] …). “‘It is the settled law of this State (and probably of every other State) that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him or her carry out his or her illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he or she, as a basis for his or her claim, must show forth his or her illegal purpose'” … . “‘Where the parties’ arrangement is illegal the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them'” … . Advanced Dental of Ardsley, PLLC v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 03804, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: A fee-splitting agreement between dentists violates the Education Law.

Practice Point: A court will not enforce an illegal contract.

 

, ,

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; PLAINTIFF HAD WON AN ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR OVER $200 MILLION AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION AFTER DEFENDANT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the nonrecourse clause in the contract between two sophisticated, commercial parties precluded plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff had won an arbitration award for over $200 million against defendant (Footprint) and this suit against Footprint’s principals was brought after Footprint filed for bankruptcy:

Plaintiff, a sophisticated commercial actor, knew that it was entering into a significant contractual undertaking with a special-purpose entity, and the contract provided for a specific dispute-resolution mechanism — arbitration — that carried with it a risk that the special-purpose entity would not be able to satisfy an ensuing award. Plaintiff could have bargained for protections to avoid or mitigate losses occasioned by the conduct of a judgment-proof special-purpose entity (e.g., conditions on Footprint’s ability to draw on the letter of credit, a payment guaranty from one or more of defendants, a narrow nonrecourse provision), but it chose to enter into the contract as written … . We cannot provide rough justice to plaintiff by dint of distorting the plain meaning of the contract to relieve plaintiff of the consequences of its contractual arrangement … . Similarly, we cannot, under the guise of contractual interpretation, disturb the clear, detailed allocation-of-risk-of-economic-loss scheme agreed upon by the parties … . Ultimately, plaintiff got the benefit of its bargain: arbitration on its cognizable claims against Footprint, which proceeding yielded a sizable award that was converted to a judgment. Iberdrola Energy Projects v Oaktree Capital Mgt. L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 03798, First Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Sophisticated corporate commercial parties will be held to an unambiguous nonrecourse provision in their contract.​

 

, , ,

MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was required after mother alleged in her petition to modify custody she did not consent to the stipulation underlying the custody order. The stipulation was not part of the record and the custody order did not recount the terms of the agreement:

Pursuant to CPLR 2104, an agreement between parties is binding against them where, as here, it was reduced to the form of an order and entered. Since “settlement agreements must abide by the principles of contract law, ‘for an enforceable agreement to exist, all material terms must be set forth and there must be a manifestation of mutual assent'” … . CPLR 2104 does not require the parties or the court to place on the record an agreement between the parties that is reduced to an order. However, failing to do so makes the agreement open to collateral litigation … . Here, in light of the mother’s averment that she did not consent to the terms of the custody order, the fact that the terms of the settlement were not placed on the record, and the fact that there was no writing subscribed by the parties, there is an unresolved issue as to whether there was a manifestation of mutual assent to the terms set forth in the custody order. Matter of Izzo v Salzarulo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03751, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: If a custody order is based upon a stipulation which was not reduced to writing and the terms of the stipulation are not in the order, the order is subject to collateral litigation, here based on mother’s allegation she did not agree to the terms.

 

,

AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the uninsured motorist claim by the driver’s spouse was precluded based on the policy. Avila was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her spouse who lost control of the car:

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(g)(1), “no policy or contract shall be deemed to insure against any liability of an insured because of death of or injuries to his or her spouse or because of injury to, or destruction of property of his or her spouse unless express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy.” “‘[I]n the absence of an express provision in an insured’s policy, a carrier is not required to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured’s spouse'” … . This provision creates “a statutory presumption that interspousal liability is excluded from coverage unless an express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy” … . Moreover, here, the language of GEICO’s policy provides that its liability coverage does not apply “[t]o any insured for bodily injury to the spouse of that insured.” Thus, Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avila, 2024 NY Slip Op 03481, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insured, Avila’s spouse, lost control of the car and hit a parked car. Avila was a passenger and was injured. The policy did not include a provision expressly covering the insured’s spouse. In addition, the policy expressly stated the insured’s spouse was not covered. Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded.

 

,

HERE A STIPULATION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT SETTING THE RENT FOR A RENT STABILIZED LEASE VIOLATED THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENDERING THE STIPULATION VOID (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined “an agreement waiving a benefit of the Rent Stabilization Laws is void as against public policy. This rule is not altered by the tenant’s status. Accordingly, the stipulation at issue here, which required the tenant to waive his right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA), is void and did not provide a path to deregulation of the subject apartment:”

The Stipulation between McKinney [the tenant] and the landlord provided that McKinney “agrees to accept and the landlord agrees to offer a rent stabilized lease” in McKinney’s name at a rate of “$650 per month.” It also stated that “$1,650 per month is a fair rent for [the] apartment being removed from Rent Control,” a proviso apparently intended to set the initial legal regulated rent under the Rent Stabilization Laws (RSL). The Stipulation further provided that “[f]or as long as Ed McKinney is the tenant, his rent shall be $650 per month plus allowable rental increases.” The effect of that provision, which neither party disputes, was to ensure that McKinney would pay a preferential rate of $650, with subsequent increases tied to this number for the duration of his tenancy. McKinney also agreed “not to challenge the rent,” thereby waiving his right to challenge the amount of the initial rent through a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) proceeding. * * *

By securing McKinney’s explicit agreement “not to challenge the rent,” the Stipulation waived his right to file an FMRA. That bargain circumvented the statutory process, and consequently the Stipulation is void in its entirety as a matter of law … . Because the Stipulation is void, [the landlord’s] registration statement based on the Stipulation is as well, and therefore “neither party is entitled to rely on it” … and it cannot serve as the basis for deregulation. It remains to be determined whether the apartment was properly deregulated on some other ground. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03378, CtApp 6-30-24

Practice Point: Re: rent stabilized leases, a stipulation which sets the rent but provides that the tenant will not challenge the rent violates the Rent Stabilization Law rendering the stipulation void.

 

THE COURT OF APPEALS MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE DISSENT WENT TOO FAR BY INTERPRETING A SHORT PHRASE WITH GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING ERRORS TO HAVE AMENDED THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH WAS UNAMBIGUOUS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined a short unintelligible phrase in the contract did not render the contract ambiguous and therefore did not allow the interpretation applied by the Appellate Division. The central issue was the term of the contract. The expiration date of the term of the contract was unambiguous. The term had expired by the time the transaction for which plaintiff sought a fee of $1.25 million was consummated:​

The muddled phrase “the with affect as of the date hereof” … does not create a factual issue with respect to the length of the Term, because that language is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation … . … “[T]he with affect as of the date hereof” can easily be understood to mean “with effect as of the date hereof.” To reach that interpretation, one need only set aside a plainly extraneous article, the word “the,” and correct a common, one-letter spelling error (“effect” versus “affect”) … .. Employing this common-sense reading, [the phrase] has no impact on the length of the Term. …

The Appellate Division held that an ambiguity exists because, in its view, ” ‘the with affect as of the date hereof’ . . . could also be corrected to state ‘with the Effective Date as the date hereof’ ” … . The dissent similarly posits that the errors could be corrected to state “with the Effective Date hereof.” These strained readings treat [the phrase] as designed to amend the Effective Date of the original agreement, the primary but unstated effect of which would be to restart its three-year Term. MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 03376, CtApp 6-20-24

Practice Point: Here the majority concluded a short phrase with grammatical and spelling errors did not render the contract ambiguous.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy