You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined that defendant Chevron was not entitled to summary judgment in this asbestos-mesothelioma action. Plaintiff’s decedent [Mr. South] signed a release in 1997 and Chevron argued the release precluded the subsequent lawsuit:

Like Supreme Court, the Appellate Division concluded that the record did not demonstrate Chevron’s entitlement to summary judgment, because the release did not specifically mention mesothelioma, which then required the court to determine whether extrinsic evidence entitled Chevron to summary judgment. Pointing to the “meager consideration” [$1,750] and the lack of any diagnosis of mesothelioma as to Mr. South at the time he settled, the Appellate Division concluded that the record left open the question of whether the release pertained to an existing pulmonary condition and the fear of some future asbestos-related disease, or if it was intended to release all future asbestos-related diseases arising from Mr. South’s employment by Texaco. The parties agree that, at the time he executed the release, Mr. South suffered from a nonmalignant pulmonary disease but not from mesothelioma or cancer. …

The sole question presented to us on this appeal is whether Chevron has established that the release, coupled with the 1997 complaint, eliminates all material questions of fact and proves that the release bars the claims here as a matter of law. Answering that question requires us to consider the protections afforded to Mr. South by admiralty law and Section 5 of FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] (45 USC § 55), which is incorporated into the Jones Act by 46 USC § 30104. …

… [W]e conclude that Chevron has not met its burden to demonstrate the absence of any material question of fact. The 1997 release does not unambiguously extinguish a future claim for mesothelioma  … . The release itself does not mention mesothelioma. It does say that Mr. South “is giving up the right to bring an action against the Released Parties, or any of them, in the future for any new or different diagnosis that may be made about Claimant’s condition as a result of exposure to any product[.]” But “claimant’s condition” may cabin the “new or different diagnosis” to ones that related to his nonmalignant asbestos-related pulmonary disease—the “condition” both parties agree was the only one he suffered at the time. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 01259, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, ,

THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPURCHASE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO REFILE THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in the residential-mortgage-backed-securities (RMBS) case was properly dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to refile pursuant to CPLR 205 (which allows a suit to be refiled within six months of a dismissal that is not on the merits). The contractual sole remedy provision, which requires that the defendant (DLJ) be notified and given the opportunity to repurchase any mortgages deemed defective, was not be complied with and the timely complaint was dismissed for that reason:

As a general rule, under CPLR 205 (a) a subsequent action may be filed within six months of a non-merits dismissal of the initial timely-filed matter. Here, we conclude that CPLR 205 (a) applies to an RMBS trustee’s second action when its timely first action is dismissed for failure to comply with a contractual condition precedent. * * *

The difference between a procedural and substantive condition precedent is well-established. A condition precedent is substantive when it “describe[s] acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract”… . In other words, the condition is “part of the cause of action and necessary to be alleged and proven, and without this no cause of action exist[s]” … , RMBS notice and sole remedy provisions are not substantive elements of the cause of action, but instead limitations on the remedy for a breach of the mortgage loan representations and warranties … . They serve as a precondition, “a procedural prerequisite to suit,” not a separate undertaking by the trustee … . Since notice and sole remedy provisions “do[] not create a substantive condition precedent” … , they do not affect when the statute of limitations commences because the limitations clock begins to run when the contract is executed.

Nevertheless, DLJ argues that the Trustee had to fulfill the procedural condition precedent before the limitations period expired, and its failure to do so rendered the original action untimely, such that a new action cannot be commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a). DLJ’s argument cannot be reconciled with our case law that a suit may be refiled pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) despite a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition precedent prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01169, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, , ,

TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS TIME-BARRED, THE ACTION COULD NOT RELATE BACK PURSUANT TO CPLR 203 BECAUSE THE TIMELY ACTION BY ANOTHER PARTY WAS PRECLUDED BY THE CONTRACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 205, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED IN SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities securities case was time-barred. A certificate holder had filed a timely action, but the relevant contract precluded the action by the certificate holder. Therefore the trustee’s action could not be deemed to relate-back to it (CPLR 203). The Court of Appeals could not consider whether the trustee’s action was timely under CPLR 205, despite the fact that the Appellate Division addressed the issue, because the issue was not fully addressed by the parties in Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals does not have interest of justice jurisdiction:

CPLR 203 (f) has no application here because the certificate holder’s pre-existing action was not valid. The lower courts concluded that under the no action clause, the certificate holder could not bring the action on behalf of itself, any other certificate holder, or the Trustee. Those conclusions are not at issue in this Court. Thus, the certificate holder’s action was subject to dismissal, and there is no valid pre-existing action to which a claim in a subsequent amended pleading may relate back. The Trustee’s contention that it may use the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203 (f) to cure the certificate holder’s lack of a right to sue, and that it may therefore avoid any problem with the identity of the plaintiff upon re-filing pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), is without merit. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01168, CtApp 2-19-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS A NONMEMBER PURCHASER OF A MEMBER’S INTEREST IN THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BRING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who was a nonmember purchaser of a member’s interest in the limited liability company (LLC), could not bring derivative causes of action on behalf of the LLC:

A “[m]ember” is a person who has been admitted as a member of a limited liability company in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law and the limited liability company’s operating agreement, and who has a membership interest in the limited liability company with the rights, obligations, preferences, and limitations specified under the Limited Liability Company Law and the operating agreement (Limited Liability Company Law § 102[q]). A “[m]embership interest” means “a member’s aggregate rights in a limited liability company, including, without limitation: (i) the member’s right to a share of the profits and losses of the limited liability company; (ii) the member’s right to receive distributions from the limited liability company; and (iii) the member’s right to vote and participate in the management of the limited liability company” (Limited Liability Company Law § 102[r]).

Here, the plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to obtain the consent of the nonselling members to be admitted as a member of the LLC when she acquired her membership interest. Paragraph 8 of the LLC’s operating agreement provides that “[n]ew members may be admitted only upon the unanimous consent of the Members and upon compliance with the provisions of this agreement,” and paragraph 32(e) of the operating agreement provides that “[a] non-member purchaser of a member’s interest cannot exercise any rights of a Member unless, by unanimous vote, the non-selling Members consent to him becoming a Member” (see Limited Liability Company Law § 602). Therefore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff, as a nonmember purchaser who had not been admitted as a member of the LLC, lacks standing to pursue derivative causes of action on behalf of the LLC … . Kaminski v Sirera, 2019 NY Slip Op 01067, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

,

CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATE FINANCE LAW AND WAS NOT VALID UNTIL APPROVED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER, NO RECOVERY FOR DELAYS IN THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS APPROVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined claimant, a company hired by defendant City University to install fire alarms, could not recover damages for alleged delays caused by the defendant prior to the approval of the contract by the comptroller. No contract with the state is valid until approval:

The parties’ contract was subject to State Finance Law § 112(2)(a), which, at the time, provided that any contract exceeding $15,000 made by “any state agency, department, board, officer, commission, or institution . . . shall first be approved by the comptroller and filed in his or her office” “[b]efore . . . be[ing] executed or becom[ing] effective” … . Moreover, the contract itself provided that it would “not be valid, effective or binding upon the State until it ha[d] been approved by the State Comptroller and filed in his [or her] office.” In light of these provisions, the claimants may not recover damages based on delay occurring before the contract was approved by the Comptroller … . C & L Elec., Inc. v City Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 01051, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

,

COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING PLAINTIFFS’ BREACH OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT WAS NOT VIABLE BECAUSE DEFENDANT CONTRACTORS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MECHANIC’S LIEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIEN LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants-contractors’ breach of contract counterclaim should have been dismissed because defendants did not provide the mechanic’s lien notice required by General Business Law 771 and summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Lien Law cause of action should have been granted. The action concerned home improvement work done by defendants. The notice failure did not preclude defendants’ recovery pursuant to quantum meruit:

… [P]laintiffs established that the contract at issue failed to comply with General Business Law § 771 inasmuch as it did not “contain the following notice to the owner in clear and conspicuous bold face type: Any contractor, subcontractor, or materialman who provides home improvement goods or services pursuant to your home improvement contract and who is not paid may have a valid legal claim against your property known as a mechanic’s lien’ ” … [The] failure “to enter into a signed written home improvement contract in conformity with General Business Law § 771 bars recovery based upon breach of contract” … . …

Plaintiffs met their initial burden [on their Line Law cause of action] … by establishing that … defendants possessed trust funds within the meaning of the Lien Law and failed to keep the records required by that statute. Lien Law § 75 (4) provides that the “[f]ailure of the trustee to keep the books or records required by th[at] section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied or consented to the application of trust funds actually received by him [or her] . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust as specified in section seventy-one of this chapter”  The evidence submitted by … defendants in opposition to the motion … supported the conclusion that they neglected to comply with the … .requirements of Lien Law § 75 … . Weiss v Zellar Homes, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 01024, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

, , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CONTROLLED THIS ARBITRATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that collateral estoppel controlled this proceeding concerning firefighter health benefits as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The issue had been resolved in prior arbitration proceedings for firefighters who had retired before 2010. The instant proceeding was brought on behalf of firefighters who have or will retire after 2010:

Arbitration awards are entitled to collateral estoppel effect and will bar a party from relitigating a material issue or claim resolved in the arbitration proceeding after a full and fair opportunity to litigate … . It is undisputed that the arbitration award, rendered after a formal evidentiary hearing at which the parties were represented by counsel, afforded defendant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues therein. Accordingly, the only question is whether plaintiffs, as the parties seeking to invoke collateral estoppel, satisfied their burden of “show[ing] the identity of the issues” between those resolved in the arbitration awards and those in play here … . * * *

The 2010 and 2012 arbitration awards were never vacated — indeed, the 2012 award was confirmed — and are binding. Inasmuch as plaintiffs retired during the period that the reimbursement was provided to retirees under CBAs containing section 27.1, the finding in those awards “that [defendant] is obligated to reimburse retired firefighters for these payments under the CBA is dispositive of the claims raised here” … . Holloway v City of Albany, 2019 NY Slip Op 00940, Third Dept 2-7-19

 

,

NURSING SCHOOL BREACHED ITS IMPLIED CONTRACT WITH GRADUATED STUDENTS WHO WERE DEEMED INELIGIBLE FOR THE LICENSE EXAMINATION AND WERE NOT PERMITTED TO ENROLL IN A COLLEGE PROGRAM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant nursing school, AUA, breached an implied contract with the graduated students. but not with the students who withdrew from the program:

In a prior decision in this action, this Court expressly recognized that there were specific promises which established the existence of an implied contract between plaintiffs and defendant AUA when it stated that “AUA’s fact book’ aimed at prospective students promised, inter alia, that AUA graduates would be eligible to take the NCLEX [National Council License Examination for Registered Nurses], and, upon passing that exam, automatically matriculate’ into Lehman College’s one-year RN to BSN program'” … .

The record clearly establishes that defendant AUA breached these promises with regard to the graduated plaintiffs as it showed that they were (1) not eligible to take the NCLEX exam until after December 13, 2011 (when the New York State Education Department [NYSED] admitted the mistake and permitted AUA graduates to sit for the exam), and (2) were not permitted to enroll in Lehman College until 2011 when they enrolled in a standard BSN program (not the ASN to BSN program AUA had promised). Supreme Court properly found that a reasonable period of time should be inferred following graduation … . However, because the graduated plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to take the NCLEX exam or enroll in Lehman College’s ASN to BSN program in a timely fashion after graduation from AUA, AUA breached the implied contract. The graduated students also established the element of damages by submitting affidavits wherein each averred that they graduated from AUA and shortly thereafter, applied to take the NCLEX but were denied because all AUA students were “ineligible” to take the exam preventing them from obtaining their nursing license and begin their profession. Jeffers v American Univ. of Antigua, 2019 NY Slip Op 00987, First Dept 2-7-19

 

, , ,

THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT INDICATED BUYER, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WAS CONTAMINATED BY OIL, WOULD INDEMNIFY SELLER FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BUYER, WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT ‘ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY TO BE FORMED,’ WAS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the terms of the purchase contract for property contaminated by oil indicated the buyer would indemnify the seller for costs associated with the condition of the property. The Fourth Department further held there was a question of fact whether the buyer signed the contract in his individual capacity in that he signed “on behalf of an entity to be formed:”

The purchase contract provided that a “Phase One Environmental report” had been completed on the property and that Marks, the “Buyer” of the property, was in receipt of the environmental report and “approve[d] of same.” The contract further provided that Atkin was the “Seller,” the property “was not in compliance with federal, state and/or local laws/ordinances,” the Buyer agreed to purchase the property “as is,” the “Buyer accept[ed] the property as is, with no representations or warranties as to environmental conditions” of the property, and the Buyer “release[d] and indemnifie[d] Seller with respect to any claims as to environmental conditions on or related to the property.” Thus, the terms of the contract establish that, prior to entering into the contract, both Atkin and Marks were generally aware of the property’s historical environmental contamination by the Exxon defendants and their predecessor, and the language in the indemnification provision, considered in light of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of the sale of the property, clearly and unambiguously expresses the intent of the parties that the Buyer would indemnify the Seller with respect to any claims regarding environmental conditions related to the property … . …

Although it is well settled that “[a]n individual who acts on behalf of a nonexistent corporation can be held personally liable” … , the determination “[w]hether a person is personally obligated on a preincorporation transaction depends on the intention of the parties” … . One Flint St., LLC v Exxon Mobil Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00752, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SPELLED OUT WHAT THE ATTORNEYS AGREED TO DO, DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department found that the retainer agreement determined the scope of what the attorneys agreed to do and the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff had retained the defendants after he was expelled form the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine:

The letter of engagement provided, in relevant part, that: “Our services will include all activities necessary and appropriate in our judgment to investigate and consider options that may be available to urge administrative reconsideration of your dismissal from the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine (the College’). This engagement does not, however, encompass any form of litigation or, to the extent ethically prohibited in this circumstance, the threat of litigation, to resolve this matter. This engagement will end upon your re-admittance to the College or upon a determination by the attorneys working on this matter that no non-litigation mechanisms are available to assist you. The scope of the engagement may not be expanded orally or by conduct; it may only be expanded by a writing signed by our Director of Public Service.” * * *

An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428). Therefore, since the defendant’s alleged failure to negotiate with the school, its alleged failure to commence litigation against the school, and its alleged failure to properly advise the plaintiff on the efficacy of a defamation action against nonschool parties fell outside the scope of the parties’ letter of engagement, dismissal of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice was warranted, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), on documentary evidence grounds. Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP,  2019 NY Slip Op 00583, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

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