You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination action was properly dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds. Plaintiff had brought a discrimination action in federal court which was dismissed. The Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) causes of action in state court, alleging the same facts as alleged in the federal case, were therefore properly dismissed. Defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. Because the defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion to dismiss , the motion court treated it as a motion for summary judgment (before issue was joined). The court noted that defendants did not make out a prima facie case in their motion papers. Therefore the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers need not be considered. The court also explained that where there is a question about the existence of a contract, a quantum meruit cause of action may be brought and the plaintiff is not required to elect his or her remedies:

Here, the factual determinations made by the federal courts with regard to the causes of action alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII were determinative of the plaintiff’s identical claims asserted in this action pursuant to NYCHRL

CPLR 3211(c) provides, “[u]pon the hearing of a motion made under subdivision (a) or (b), either party may submit any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Whether or not issue has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.” Although the path the defendants took in moving pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) was procedurally questionable, they charted their own course in this instance. There was no need to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file additional papers because the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by failing to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any issues of fact with respect to those causes of action. Accordingly, the defendants were properly denied summary judgment, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Karimian v Time Equities, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05583, Second Dept 8-1-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (C) (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/QUANTUM MERUIT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant insurer was entitled to rescind the insurance policy because of a material misrepresentation, even if the misrepresentation was innocent or unintentional. Plaintiffs represented to the insurer that the condominium would be occupied by them and that they had no other residences. However, plaintiffs never lived in the condominium, which was occupied by plaintiffs’ daughter. The condominium was damaged when a water pipe broke:

“To establish the right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must show that its insured made a material misrepresentation of fact when he or she secured the policy” … . “A representation is a statement as to past or present fact, made to the insurer by, or by the authority of, the applicant for insurance or the prospective insured, at or before the making of the insurance contract as an inducement to the making thereof” … . “A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented”… . “To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” … .

Otsego Mutual established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ application for insurance contained a material misrepresentation regarding whether the townhouse would be owner-occupied and that it would not have issued the subject policy if the application had disclosed that the townhouse would not be owner-occupied … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ contention that Otsego Mutual was required to establish that their misrepresentation was willful lacks merit. With limited exception not applicable here, “a material misrepresentation, even if innocent or unintentional, is sufficient to warrant rescission of an insurance policy” … . Piller v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05615, Second Dept 8-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT))/MISREPRESENTATION (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined (1) the ventilator on which plaintiff was crouching when it detached and he fell was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1), (2) plaintiff’s testimony that he couldn’t reach the ventilator, which he was attempting to remove, from the A-frame ladder he was provided entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, and (3) the landlord was entitled to summary judgment on the cross-claim for indemnification by the tenant, noting that the indemnification clause in the lease did not require that the tenant be negligent and that a Labor Law 240 (1) violation is not a finding that the tenant was negligent:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the ventilator he was standing on and disassembling when he fell was not a safety device; it was the object of the demolition project on which he was employed, and was not intended to protect him from elevation-related risks … . …

Despite Eight Oranges’ [tenant’s] argument to the contrary, this indemnification provision does not require a finding of negligence on the part of the tenant before it is triggered. Nor does it violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, “since a finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 is not the equivalent of a finding of negligence and does not give rise to an inference of negligence” … . It is clear from the contractual language at issue that the landlord … intended to be indemnified by the tenant, Eight Oranges, for any “damage or injury occurring or arising to any person” on the property, that is caused by the tenant. Hong-Bao Ren v Gioia St. Marks, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05520, First Dept 7-26-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))

,

CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a contract concerning plaintiff-broker’s entitlement to a commission was ambiguous requiring a trial. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

Crucially, an agreement can be deemed unambiguous “if the language it uses has a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion'” … .

However, a contract is ambiguous when “read as a whole, [it] fails to disclose its purpose and the parties’ intent” … , or when specific language is “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”… . Moreover, the agreement must be read as a whole “to ensure that excessive emphasis is not placed upon particular words or phrases” … .

Stated differently, the existence of ambiguity is determined by examining ” the entire contract and consider[ing] the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed,'” with the wording viewed ” in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby'” … . And, importantly, “[i]n construing a contract, one of a court’s goals is to avoid an interpretation that would leave contractual clauses meaningless” … .

We find that the agreement here is ambiguous with regard to which parties are bound to its terms. Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v E&M Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05525, First Dept 7-26-18

CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKER’S COMMISSION, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant insurance brokers’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract-negligence action by the insureds was properly granted. The Insureds’ alleged there was an agreement to increase the insurance coverage on the insureds’ home which was destroyed by fire after renovations had been made and there was a special relationship between the brokers and the insureds. There evidence did not support either theory:

As a general principle, insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so; however, they have no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage” … . Thus, “[t]o set forth a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy” … . * * *

Stressing that “special relationships in the insurance brokerage context are the exception, not the norm” … , the Court of Appeals has identified three “exceptional situations” that may give rise to a special relationship: “(1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” … . Hefty v Paul Seymour Ins. Agency, 2018 NY Slip Op 05547, Third Dept 7-26-18

INSURANCE LAW (NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (INSURANCE LAW, (NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))

,

DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that a divorce settlement agreement which indicated a specific date (2020) when the husband’s maintenance obligation ends did not extend the husband’s maintenance obligation beyond the wife’s remarriage in 2015. Because the agreement was silent on the meaning of “maintenance” the court turned to Domestic Relations Law 236 which indicates that a maintenance obligation terminates upon remarriage:

A divorce settlement agreement is a contract, subject to standard principles of contract interpretation … . The agreement at issue does not explicitly define the term “maintenance,” and it is silent regarding the effect of the wife’s remarriage upon the husband’s maintenance obligation. Thus, the plain text of the agreement — which the Court of Appeals says is the best source of the parties’ intent … — is not conclusive of the question on appeal.

“Nevertheless, it is basic that, unless a contract provides otherwise, the law in force at the time the agreement is entered into becomes as much a part of the agreement as though it were expressed or referred to therein, for it is presumed that the parties had such law in contemplation when the contract was made and the contract will be construed in the light of such law” (Dolman v United States Trust Co. of N.Y., 2 NY2d 110, 116 [1956] …). The Dolman rule is of longstanding vintage, and the “principle embraces alike those [laws in force at the time of a contract’s execution] which affect its validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement” … . By virtue of the Dolman rule, when parties enter into an agreement authorized by or related to a particular statutory scheme, the courts will presume — absent something to the contrary — that the terms of the agreement are to be interpreted consistently with the corresponding statutory scheme … .

The statutory scheme corresponding to the agreement in this case is Domestic Relations Law § 236, which authorizes divorce settlement agreements and directs that such agreements specify the “amount and duration of maintenance,” if any … . The term ” maintenance’ ” is defined within this statutory scheme as “payments provided for in a valid agreement between the parties or awarded by the court . . . , to be paid at fixed intervals for a definite or indefinite period of time” … . Critically, the statutory definition includes the following caveat: any maintenance award “shall terminate upon the death of either party or upon the payee’s valid or invalid marriage” … . Burns v Burns, 2018 NY Slip Op 05411, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a negligence cause of action, which was based upon a breach of contract allegation, should have been dismissed:

 “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . “This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” ,,, , “Merely charging a breach of a duty of due care’, employing language familiar to tort law, does not, without more, transform a simple breach of contract into a tort claim” … . “[W]here [a] plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory” … .

Here, the complaint did not allege facts that would give rise to a duty owed to the plaintiff that is independent of the duty imposed by the parties’ agreement. Ocean Gate Homeowners Assn., Inc. v T.W. Finnerty Prop. Mgt., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05475, Second Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACT LAW, NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for violation of the “prevailing wage” requirement of the Labor Law when plaintiff did work for a contractor (Zoria Housing) on properties owned by the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA):

… [T]he plaintiff stated viable breach of contact causes of action based on violations of statutorily mandated provisions in agreements between Zoria Housing and NYCHA, requiring the payment of prevailing wages and overtime pay. “In situations where the Labor Law requires the inclusion of a provision for payment of the prevailing wage in a labor contract between a public agency and a contractor, a contractual obligation is created in favor of the contractor’s employees, and an employee covered by or subject to the contract, in his or her status as third-party beneficiary to the contract, possesses a common-law cause of action against the contractor to recover damages for breach of such a contractual obligation” … . Here, the complaint alleges, in effect, that Zoria Housing failed to pay the plaintiff “prevailing wages” and overtime pay in breach of municipal contracts that included prevailing-wage and overtime provisions pursuant to the Labor Law (see generally Labor Law §§ 220, 231). The complaint thus stated viable breach of contract causes of action … . Singh v Zoria Hous., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05513, Second Dept 7-25-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the general contractor’s (Harbour’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged that Harbour removed a tank and exposed a dangerous opening in a metal plate. Plaintiff alleged, while working at the site, he stepped backwards into the opening and fell, hitting his head on the concrete floor. The First Department held there was a question of fact whether Harbour launched an instrument of harm by not taking remedial measures to make the area safe after removing the tank. The fact that the opening was obvious and plaintiff knew about it did not warrant summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Although both defendants argue that the exposed opening in the metal plate was open, obvious, readily observable and known to plaintiff, a property owner has a nondelegable duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account the forseeability of injury to others … . Moreover, although a defect or hazard may be discernable, this does not end the analysis, or compel a determination in favor of the property owner … . Plaintiff’s awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate a duty to warn of the hazard, but only goes to the issue of comparative negligence … . Given the exposed opening’s proximity to equipment that required service, the circumstances of plaintiff’s accident present an issue of fact of not only whether the condition was open and obvious, but also whether it was inherently dangerous… . Some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location … . Defendants did not establish that the exposed opening – given its location in the floor near other mechanical equipment in the pump room – was not only open and obvious, but that there was no duty to warn, and that the condition was not inherently dangerous … .

A contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a noncontracting third party (Espinal 98 NY2d at 138]). One exception to this broad rule is where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, “launche[s] a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal at 140). We depart from the dissent in finding that Harbour failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care and that it did not negligently cause, create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05222, First Dept 7-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the arbitrator’s finding there was just cause to overlook the grievant’s one-minute tardiness for work. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) included an eight-step disciplinary procedure for tardiness. Essentially eight instances of tardiness led to termination. Grievant had seven instances of tardiness at the time she was one minute late. She was delayed by a disabled train and she had called 10 minutes before her starting time to say she might be late because of the train:

We agree with respondent that the arbitrator’s award was not irrational. An award is irrational “if there is no proof whatever to justify” it… , and “[a]n arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ ” … . Here, there is a colorable justification for the arbitrator’s determination. The attendance policy was a no-fault, straightforward progression of discipline that would be imposed for every incident of tardiness. Nevertheless, the CBA also had the “just cause” provision, and the arbitrator concluded that strict adherence to the attendance policy could be rejected in exceptional cases. …

We also agree with respondent that the arbitrator did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his power. The CBA provided that the arbitrator “shall have no power or authority to add to, subtract from, modify, change, or alter any provisions of this Agreement.” Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator did not impose any new requirement upon petitioner before it could discipline its employees and thus did not add to or alter the CBA. As explained above, the arbitrator determined, under the specific facts of this case, that the penalty of termination could not be upheld. The arbitrator did not adopt any new rules that petitioner must follow in future disciplinary cases, and we therefore reject petitioner’s slippery slope argument … . Matter of Lift Line, Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local 282), 2018 NY Slip Op 05102, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​ARBITRATION (THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT  (THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH 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