You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the lessee’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint injury case should have been granted. The injured child was in the subtenant’s family. The subtenant sued the owner of the building for failing to abate the lead paint hazard. The owner attempted to seek indemnification from the lessee. The indemnification clause in the lease, however, was not enforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s negligence:

At the time when the alleged injury occurred, Administrative Code of the City of New York former § 27-2013(h) (Local Law 1) … placed a specific duty on the owner of a multiple dwelling to abate lead paint in leased premises where children under the specified age resided… . The owner of a cooperative corporation was considered the owner of a multiple dwelling for purposes of Local Law 1… .

Contrary to the [lessee’s] contention, the fact that Local Law 1 imposed a nondelegable duty on [the owner] to abate the lead paint hazard does not mean that [the owner] is precluded from recovering in indemnity, either contractual or common-law, from third parties whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused or contributed to the infant plaintiff’s injuries… . However, under the circumstances presented, [the owner] may not seek contractual indemnification from the [lessee] based on the indemnification provision contained in the proprietary lease. “A broad indemnification provision in a lease . . . which is not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, fails to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, and does not limit the lessor’s recovery under the lessee’s indemnification obligation to insurance proceeds, is unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321” … . N.A. v Hillcrest Owners Assn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07133, Second Dept 10-24-18

CONTRACT LAW (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LEASE, BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a class action stemming from the loss of power during Hurricane Sandy, determined: (1) the public was a third-party beneficiary of a contract between National Grid and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA); (2) the public was subject to the arbitration clause in the contract; and (3) filing a pre-answer motion dismiss did not act as a waiver of arbitration:

… [U]nder limited circumstances nonsignatories may be compelled to arbitrate” … . “Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory knowingly exploits’ the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . …

National Grid … demonstrated that the plaintiffs derived a direct benefit from the [contract] and that the plaintiffs are explicitly relying upon the terms of that agreement to support their claims against National Grid. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate in accordance with the arbitration clause … . …

… [T]the service of a pre-answer motion to dismiss does not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate, since “a defendant is entitled to have the sufficiency of a complaint tested before a duty to seek arbitration arises” … . Similarly, an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss does not result in waiver of the right to arbitrate … . Matter of Long Is. Power Auth. Hurricane Sandy Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 07127, Second Dept 10-24-18

ARBITRATION (IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION, IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/UTILITIES (IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))

,

STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that a stipulation allowing the mother to relocate cannot be put into effect absent a hearing examining the best interests of the children:

On March 13, 2014, the parties executed a custody stipulation that was so-ordered and incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The parties agreed to joint custody of their two children, with the mother being the primary residential custodian. The stipulation permitted the mother to relocate within 55 miles of her current residence without the express written permission of the father or a court order. …

The Family Court should not have granted the relief requested by the mother and summarily dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). “No agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which a weighing of all the factors involved shows to be in the child’s best interest” … . Thus, although the parties agreed in their stipulation that the mother could relocate to within 55 miles of her residence in Mamaroneck, such an agreement is not dispositive, but rather, is a factor to be considered along with all of the other factors a hearing court should consider when determining whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children … . Further, the father made an evidentiary showing that the mother’s proposed move might not be in the children’s best interests … . Where, as here, facts essential to the best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is require … . Matter of Jaimes v Gyerko, 2018 NY Slip Op 07125, Second Dept 10-24-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELOCATION (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, STIPULATION, CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint stated causes of action for promissory estoppel and a constructive trust. Plaintiff alleged that his mother removed him from her will, not to disinherit him, but to prevent his former wife from sharing in the estate.  Plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister. The agreement regarding the disposition of the estate made between plaintiff and defendant violated the statute of frauds. However promissory estoppel may be applicable:

The amended complaint alleges that, both before the mother’s death and subsequent to it, plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby, essentially, defendant would be the sole heir to the estate, and would, among other things, give plaintiff his 50% share after completion of plaintiff’s divorce, and, until the final transfer of his share of the estate, defendant would maintain a life insurance policy of at least $5 million, with plaintiff as the sole beneficiary. Giving the complaint “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” … , it may be inferred that this oral agreement was in furtherance of the mother’s wishes, as her decision to remove plaintiff from the will was for the sole purpose of denying the former wife any access to the estate, and not an affirmative wish to disinherit plaintiff. In furtherance of the oral agreement, following the mother’s death, plaintiff paid the estate tax from his share of the mother’s life insurance policy.

… “[W]here the elements of promissory estoppel are established, and the injury to the party who acted in reliance on the oral promise is so great that enforcement of the statute of frauds would be unconscionable, the promisor should be estopped from reliance on the statute of frauds” … .

Plaintiff here has also sufficiently alleged the elements of his constructive trust claim … . Castellotti v Free, 2018 NY Slip Op 07045, First Dept 10-23-18

CONTRACT LAW (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))

,

SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had the right of first refusal on the sale of a car wash. Defendant sellers’ attempt to put a restriction on the deed to prohibit the operation of a car wash on the property was deemed a deliberate, bad faith effort to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights:

The inclusion of the deed restriction within the purchase agreement was precisely targeted to prevent plaintiff — which defendants knew was in the car wash business and had entered into the right of first refusal as a means of preserving its opportunity to operate a car wash on the property — from exercising its first refusal rights. We find that [the] documentation conclusively demonstrates that defendants improperly structured their agreement to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights …. As defendants did not disavow these submissions, or the intent contained therein, they failed to meet their burden to raise an issue of fact in this regard. Under the circumstances presented here, the purchase agreement was thus entered into in bad faith as a matter of law … .

Accordingly, as plaintiff demonstrated a right to enforcement of the contract, its cross motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted, and the complaint and cross claims should not have been dismissed. Clifton Land Co. LLC v Magic Car Wash, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07027, Third Dept. 10-18-18

CONTRACT LAW (SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (CONTRACT LAW, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/BAD FAITH (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s application to impose sanctions against defendant’s attorney for frivolous conduct should have have been granted:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application to impose sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and expenses against the defendant’s attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Although “[a]n agreement between spouses or prospective spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability” … , the defendant, through her attorney, moved to set aside the prenuptial agreement contending, in effect, that there had been a novation such that the prenuptial agreement had been replaced by the affidavit of support. The defendant’s attorney provided no legal authority supporting this contention. Even though the court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, to preclude the defendant from seeking to set aside the parties’ prenuptial agreement, the defendant’s attorney later attempted, at the nonjury trial, to question the plaintiff about the affidavit of support, arguing, in effect, that the affidavit of support replaced the prenuptial agreement. The defense then rested without presenting evidence.

The conduct of the defendant’s attorney was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). The defendant’s attorney continued to advance his contention relating to the affidavit of support, which was completely without merit in law, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s prior ruling. Moreover, that contention could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and the conduct of the defendant’s attorney appears to have been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation … . Tamburello v Tamburello, 2018 NY Slip Op 06961, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, SANCTIONS, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

,

DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action controlled, and a domestic relations order (DRO) which did not conform to the stipulation could not be enforced:

“A stipulation of settlement that has been incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation” … . “A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the apparent meaning” … . “A domestic relations order entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the formula set forth in her proposed DRO conflicts with the stipulation of settlement, which provided for a “fifty/fifty division of all pension benefits accumulated from the date of this marriage … through the date of service of the summons and complaint … ,” and that the plaintiff is “to be the recipient of 50 percent of any and all benefits payable to the [defendant] upon his retirement which were accumulated during that period of time” … . The stipulation of settlement made no reference to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481), nor can such a reference be implied from the unambiguous terms of the stipulation … . Since the stipulation is controlling, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter her proposed DRO … . McPhillips v McPhillips, 2018 NY Slip Op 06896, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (DRO)  (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (DIVORCE, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted defendant’s summary judgment in this action on a promissory note. The agreement at issue was an illegal contract involving a fee-splitting arrangement between physicians and non-physicians which is prohibited by the Education Law:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover the balance due on the promissory note and for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, and, upon searching the record, to award the defendants summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence submitted by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that the agreement and the promissory note were a pretext for an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement in violation of the Education Law because they circumvented New York’s prohibition on physicians splitting fees with nonphysicians (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'” … . Linchitz Practice Mgt., Inc. v Daat Med. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06891, Second Dept 10-17-18

CONTRACT LAW (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/PHYSICIANS (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/FEE-SPLITTING (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the language of a mortgage loan purchase and warranties agreement (MLPWA) did not postpone the accrual of a breach of contract cause of action and, therefore, the statute of limitations had expired. This is another case arising out of the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities which were supported by allegedly defective mortgage loans that did not comply with the representations and warranties in the agreement:

… [P]laintiff did not dispute that the representations and warranties made by defendant in the MLPWA were effective as of the closing date. Instead, plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations had yet to lapse, relying upon a provision in the MLPWA that it refers to as the “accrual clause,” which states as follows: “Any cause of action against the Seller relating to or arising out of the breach of any representations and warranties made in Subsections 9.01 and 9.02 shall accrue as to any Mortgage Loan upon (i) discovery of such breach by the Purchaser or notice thereof by the Seller to the Purchaser, (ii) failure by the Seller to cure such breach, substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan or repurchase such Mortgage Loan as specified above and (iii) demand upon the Seller by the Purchaser for compliance with this Agreement.” …

In New York, the default accrual rule for breach of contract causes of action is that the cause of action accrues when the contract is breached … . “[E]xcept in cases of fraud where the statute expressly provides otherwise, the statutory period of limitations begins to run from the time when liability for wrong has arisen even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury”… . This Court has “repeatedly rejected accrual dates which cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, in favor of a bright line approach,” and for that reason, we do not “apply the discovery rule to statutes of limitations in contract actions” … . “To extend the highly exceptional discovery notion to general breach of contract actions would effectively eviscerate the Statute of Limitations in this commercial dispute arena” … . * * *

… [General Obligations Law 17-103] requires an agreement to extend the statute of limitations to be made “after accrual of the cause of action,” and it allows extension of the limitations period only for, at most, the time period that would apply if the cause of action had accrued on the date of the agreement, i.e., six years from the date that the agreement was made if the limitations period is six years … . An agreement to extend the statute of limitations that does not comply with these requirements “has no effect” … . In addition, CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement,” and “[n]o court shall extend the time limited by law for the commencement of an action.” Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Flagstar Capital Mkts., 2018 NY Slip Op 06851, CtApp 10-16-18

CONTRACT LAW (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACT LAW, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the snow removal contractor's (O & M's) motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case should have been granted:

“As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties”… . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 …).

Here, O & M made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the injured plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal contract and, thus, O & M owed her no duty of care … . Since the pleadings did not allege facts which would establish the applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, O & M was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

In opposition to O & M's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether O & M “created or exacerbated a dangerous condition” … . “A snow removal contractor cannot be held liable for personal injuries on the ground that the snow removal contractor's passive omissions constituted the launch of a force or instrument of harm, where there is no evidence that the passive conduct created or exacerbated a dangerous condition'” … . Reisert v Mayne Constr. of Long Is., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06777, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/ESPINAL FACTORS (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESPINAL FACTORS, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND 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