You are here: / Contract Law
, , , ,

THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the misrepresentation of the dimensions of the cooperative apartment in the listing could not be deemed incorporated by reference into the purchase agreement. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiffs allege that defendants prepared a floor plan, which accompanied the listing for the unit at issue, that stated that the unit was “~1,966” square feet, when it was, in fact, approximately 1,495 square feet. Plaintiffs contend that the floor plan was incorporated into the offering plan by reference, and the offering plan, in turn, was incorporated into the purchase agreement. …

The doctrine of incorporation by reference “is appropriate only where the document to be incorporated is referred to and described in the instrument as issued so as to identify the referenced document beyond all reasonable doubt'”… . Here, the listing is not identified in any of the relevant purchase documents … .

Moreover, any purported representation or warranty is refuted by the clear terms of the purchase agreement, which contains a merger clause, states that no representations are being made by the sponsor, that the unit was being purchased “as is” and that the onus was on the buyer to inspect “to determine the actual dimensions” prior to purchasing  … . …

Reasonable reliance is an element of claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation… . Plaintiffs cannot as a matter of law establish reasonable reliance on a representation concerning the condition of the apartment since they had the means to ascertain the truth of the condition … . …

… [P]plaintiffs’ allegations based on purported representations made in the listing fail to set forth a viable claim under General Business Law §§ 349 or 350, as they do not fall within the type of deceptive acts, that, if permitted to continue, would have a broad impact on consumers at large … . Von Ancken v 7 E. 14 L.L.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08097, First Dept 11-27-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE (CONTRACT LAW, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSUMER LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (COOPERATIVES, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/LISTING (REAL ESTATE, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LISTING, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the stipulation signed by plaintiff teacher, who agreed to resign in return for discontinuing the disciplinary hearing, was binding under contract principles, despite the inapplicability of CPLR 2104 to administrative proceedings. After signing the stipulation, plaintiff changed his mind:

In the stipulation, DOE (Department of Education] agreed to discontinue the disciplinary hearing on the pending misconduct charges and to take no further disciplinary action against plaintiff, in exchange for which plaintiff agreed “to irrevocably retire from his employment with [DOE] … .” The agreement was signed by plaintiff, his counsel, and DOE’s counsel … . Annexed to the stipulation was a letter signed by plaintiff and addressed to District Superintendent Karen Watts stating, “I hereby irrevocably retire from [DOE] … .” The stipulation contained a signature line for Superintendent Watts, who signed it several days later.

Before Superintendent Watts signed the stipulation, plaintiff notified DOE that he had changed his mind and wanted to rescind the stipulation. He argues that the stipulation was unenforceable when he changed his mind because not all the parties had signed it. …

Although CPLR 2104 is not applicable to agreements entered into in administrative proceedings, the stipulation signed by plaintiff and counsel acting on behalf of DOE is binding under general contract principles … . Plaintiff failed to show the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or that counsel lacked DOE’s consent to enter into the stipulation … . Plaintiff’s agreement to retire was irrevocable, and plaintiff understood its consequences. His change of mind is not a cause sufficient to set aside his agreement … . Nor is his parol evidence, offered to show that the parties did not intend to be bound by the stipulation until Superintendent Watts had signed it, admissible to add to or vary the terms of the writing … . Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08065, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 2104  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the denial of defendant employer’s (SLSCO’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff employees’ breach of contract complaint. The complaint alleged that SLSCO and the subcontractor, PMJ, which employed plaintiffs, breached the prime employment contract by failing to pay the prevailing wage for work done for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The court noted the employees were third party beneficiaries of the contract and the clause in the contract which purported to prohibit third-party actions seeking the prevailing wage would be void as against public policy:

Plaintiffs are employees of PMJ. They commenced this action for breach of contract against PMJ and SLSCO, predicated upon a third-party contract beneficiary theory, alleging that PMJ failed to pay them prevailing wages as required by the terms of the prime contract … . …

Labor Law § 220(3) provides, in pertinent part, that wages paid to laborers, workers, or mechanics on a public works project shall be the prevailing rate of wages in that locality, and that the public works contracts, including subcontracts thereunder “shall contain a provision that each laborer, workman or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person about or upon such public work shall be paid the wages herein”. This statute “has as its entire aim the protection of workingmen against being induced, or obliged, to accept wages below the prevailing rate” and “must be construed with the liberality needed to carry out its beneficent purposes”… . In keeping with this liberal reading of the statute, the courts of this state have consistently held that, in public works contracts, a subcontractor’s employees have both an administrative remedy under the statute as well as a third-party right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor … . Wroble v Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng’g of N.Y., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08061, First Dept 11-27-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PREVAILING WAGE, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (CONTRACT LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with Supreme Court that the real estate purchase contract, although some terms were missing, satisfied the statute of frauds, Therefore the motion to dismiss the action for specific performance was properly denied. However, Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to demonstrate he had the financial ability to purchase the property on the law date:

“Only reasonable certainty, not absolute certainty, as to the terms of the agreement is required” … . Here, the essential terms of the contract were explicitly contained in the agreement, thus satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds. The agreement is subscribed by the parties to be charged, identifies the parties to the transaction, describes the property to be sold with sufficient particularity, and states the purchase price, the down payment received, and how the purchase price was to be paid … . Additionally, while some terms, such as the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, and the risk of loss between the contract and the closing, are not included within the agreement, the remaining terms are clear and enforceable and, thus, the law will serve to fill in those missing provisions … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to demonstrate that he had the financial ability to consummate the sale of the property on January 25, 2016, the date which he had set for the closing in his time-is-of-the-essence letter to the defendant. The plaintiff’s submissions highlighted, rather than eliminated, triable issues of fact as to whether he possessed the funds necessary to consummate the sale. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff did not meet his prima facie burden on his motion, and thus, the motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . O’Hanlon v Renwick, 2018 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 11-21-18

REAL ESTATE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))

,

VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging certain payments made in connection with refinancing multi-million dollar loans were unenforceable penalties and were paid under duress. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The central issue was whether the voluntary payment of the charges in question without protest, i.e., the voluntary payment doctrine, warranted dismissal of the complaint. The issues were described as follows:

The relative sophistication of the parties is not a factor to be considered in assessing a claim of economic duress … . Economic duress exists where a party is compelled to agree to terms set by another party because of a wrongful threat by the other party that prevents it from exercising its free will. Accordingly, our analysis consists of two prongs: first, whether Blackrock’s [defendant’s] decision to demand the late charge and extra interest payment was lawful, that is, based on rights enumerated in the agreement; and second, if it was not, whether the demand placed plaintiff in a position such that it had no other choice but to accede. With respect to the first prong, Blackrock [argues] that, because the mezzanine loan agreement is part of the record, we can decide, even at this procedural posture, that, as a matter of law, the charges were not wrongful. … Defendant argues that … the agreement plainly establishes that it had the right to make the demand it did. Plaintiff, in contrast, asserts that the late charge provision is, at the very least, ambiguous with respect to how Blackrock was to calculate the charge, and that, even if the calculation was correct, it constitutes an unenforceable penalty. Beltway 7 & Props., Ltd. v Blackrock Realty Advisers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07844, First Dept 11-15-18

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))/VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTRACT LAW, (VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))

,

SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a signatory to an agreement with an arbitration clause could not avoid arbitration because other parties entwined in the matter were not signatories:

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Garnick’s motion which sought a permanent stay of arbitration of the claims against him by Teitelbaum and Coluccio, derivatively on behalf of Axcess I, LLC, and Brooklyn Axcess, LLC, respectively. Axcess I, LLC, and Brooklyn Axcess, LLC, are not signatories to the Axcess, Inc., shareholders agreement that contains the arbitration clause. Nevertheless, Garnick is estopped from avoiding arbitration with them based on the relatedness between Axcess, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Axcess I, LLC, and Brooklyn Axcess, LLC, and the agreements and controversies at issue, which are intertwined with the Axcess, Inc., shareholders agreement containing the arbitration clause, to which Garnick is a signatory. Matter of DeNobile v Panetta, 2018 NY Slip Op 07722, Second Dept 11-14-18

ARBITRATION (CONTRACT LAW, SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer should not have been allowed to amend its answer to assert a release from liability for plaintiff’s injury based on plaintiff’s signing a “Volunteer Agreement.” The Volunteer Agreement purported to release the employer from any liability for injury to plaintiff on the job. Plaintiff was struck by a forklift operated by defendant’s employee. The release violated public policy:

While leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …), here, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit … . New York courts have long found agreements between an employer and an employee attempting to exonerate the employer from liability for future negligence whether of itself or its employees or limiting its liability on account of such negligence void as against public policy … .

As observed by the Court of Appeals more than a century ago, “[t]he state is interested in the conservation of the lives and of the healthful vigor of its citizens, and if employers could contract away their responsibility at common law, it would tend to encourage on their part laxity of conduct in, if not an indifference to, the maintenance of proper and reasonable safeguards to human life and limb” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the public policy considerations applicable to paid employees also apply to a volunteer employee, such as the plaintiff herein. The purported release contained in the “Volunteer Agreement” is void as against public policy. Richardson v Island Harvest, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 07768, Second Dept 11-14-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMEND ANSWER, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (AMEND, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff should have given defendant the opportunity to cure an inadvertent failure to make a monthly payment pursuant to stipulation of settlement. Defendant had repaid much of the debt and, based on the default, would owe more than twice the amount that remained to be paid:

… Supreme Court should have granted the alternate branch of the defendant’s motion, which was, in effect, to preclude the plaintiff from enforcing the default provision of the stipulation without affording the defendant a reasonable opportunity to cure his default. “Under 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” … .

Here, the defendant’s default was inadvertent and minor in nature when measured against the harsh result that would be obtained upon literal enforcement of the default provision in the stipulation… . Insofar as the plaintiff failed to offer the defendant any opportunity to cure his default before seeking to recover the full amount due under the judgment, the plaintiff’s conduct could be interpreted as an attempt to take advantage of a technical default to obtain payment of the far greater sum which the plaintiff had originally sought, but agreed to forgo as part of the settlement … . RCS Recovery Servs., LLC v Mensah, 2018 NY Slip Op 07766, Second Dept 11-14-18

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))/LOANS  (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (LOAN PAYMENTS, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))/CURE (LOANS, DEFAULT, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint seeking specific performance, based on the language of the real estate purchase contract, should have been granted. Plaintiff was the highest bidder on real property and signed a purchase contract but did not appear on the closing dates:

… [W]e find that the terms and conditions of the contract of sale utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations and establish a defense as a matter of law. The contract clearly provides that the plaintiff’s failure to close pursuant to the terms and conditions of sale will result in a forfeiture of the down payment; that in the event the closing is postponed at the plaintiff’s request, then the adjourned date shall be deemed the final law date; that the plaintiff’s failure to close on the final law date shall entitle the County to cancel the sale and to retain the down payment; and, in those circumstances, the plaintiff waives all claims of any right, title and interest in the subject property and the down payment. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the contract of sale demonstrate that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff—the alleged breach of contract by the County—is not a fact at all, and no significant dispute exists regarding it. Mahmood v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 07715, Second Dept 11-14-18

CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award should have been confirmed. The dispute concerned a broker’s fee provision in a lease. The arbitrator reasoned that the lease provision did not control because at the time the tenants bought the property the lease had expired and tenancy was month to month. The First Department explained the extremely limited court-review powers re: arbitration awards:

CPLR 7511 provides just four grounds for vacating an arbitration award, including that the arbitrator “exceeded his power” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]), which “occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power”… . Mere errors of fact or law are insufficient to vacate an arbitral award … . “[C]ourts are obligated to give deference to the decision of the arbitrator, … even if the arbitrator misapplied the substantive law in the area of the contract” … .

Here, the arbitrator’s conclusion that a sales commission was not due under the precise terms of the Agreement because the lease was not extended is neither wholly irrational nor contrary to any strong public policy … . Matter of NRT N.Y. LLC v Spell, 2018 NY Slip Op 07664, First Dept 11-13-18

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

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