You are here: / Contract Law
, , ,

DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS’ ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs, who had effectively taken back a mortgage on property sold to defendant, could not enforce the purchase contract which purported to declare the contract null and void and require the defendant to vacate the property upon default. Defendant, by making substantial monthly payments pursuant to the contract, had acquired equitable title to the property. Plaintiffs only available remedies are foreclosure or an action at law for the purchase price:

A rider to the [purchase] contract contained a provision providing that in the event the defendant defaulted in making payments under the contract and failed to cure, and that said default resulted in the plaintiffs' inability to pay an existing mortgage on the property, the defendant forfeited all monies paid as liquidated damages, the contract was deemed null and void, and the premises were to be vacated in good condition. * * *

“The execution of a contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a partial payment gives the contract vendee equitable title to the property” … . “[T]he vendor merely holds the legal title in trust for the vendee, subject to the vendor's equitable lien for the payment of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of the contract” … . Accordingly, the vendee under a land sale contract has acquired an interest in the property that must be extinguished before the vendor can resume possession, notwithstanding whether a provision in the contract provides that in the event of the vendee's uncured default in payment, the vendor has the right to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises… . A vendor may not enforce his rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee's equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price … .

The defendant, having executed a contract for the purchase of property from the plaintiffs, and having made substantial payments to the plaintiffs pursuant to the contract, held equitable title to the property… . Under these circumstances, upon the defendant's default in making payments under the contract, the plaintiffs could not seek relief pursuant to the provision of the rider that provided for the contract to be deemed null and void, the premises vacated, and the defendant to forfeit all monies paid as liquidated damages. The plaintiffs were required to proceed to foreclose the defendant's equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price … . Russell v Pisana, 2018 NY Slip Op 05789, Second Dept 8-15-18

FORECLOSURE (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW  (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE  (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))

,

COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a covenant not to compete which prohibited defendant surgeon from practicing within a ten-mile radius of his former employer was unreasonable and was properly invalidated. The argument that the covenant should be partially enforced was rejected as well:

“Agreements restricting an individual’s right to work or compete are not favored and thus are strictly construed” … ” [A] restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee'” … . The determination of whether a restrictive covenant is reasonable involves the application of a three-pronged test. “A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public” … . The “violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . “With agreements not to compete between professionals . . . [courts] have given greater weight to the interests of the employer in restricting competition within a confined geographical area” … . That said, “the application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . “The rationale for the differential application of the common-law rule of reasonableness . . . was that professionals are deemed to provide unique or extraordinary'” services … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the provision of the covenant prohibiting Andrade for a period of two years from practicing surgery of any kind, within a 10-mile radius of all of the plaintiff’s offices and affiliated hospitals, even those at which he had never worked, was geographically unreasonable, because it effectively barred him from performing surgery, his chosen field of medicine, in the New York metropolitan area … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to modify the covenant rather than invalidating it. The determination of whether an overly broad restrictive covenant should be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate interest involves “a case specific analysis, focusing on the conduct of the employer in imposing the terms of the agreement” … . Partial enforcement may be justified if an employer demonstrates, in addition to having a legitimate business interest, “an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct” … . “Factors weighing against partial enforcement are the imposition of the covenant in connection with hiring or continued employment—as opposed to, for example, imposition in connection with a promotion to a position of responsibility and trust—the existence of coercion or a general plan of the employer to forestall competition, and the employer’s knowledge that the covenant was overly broad”… . Long Is. Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05674, Second Dept 8-8-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

n a breach of contract action too complex to fairly summarize here, the Second Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) because plaintiff did not demonstrate when the damages were incurred:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest. CPLR 5001(a) provides that interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded for a breach of contract. CPLR 5001 further mandates that “[i]nterest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed” (CPLR 5001[b]). “Where such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date” (CPLR 5001[b]…). CPLR 5001 further provides that “[t]he date from which interest is to be computed shall be specified in the verdict, report or decision” (CPLR 5001[c]). With limited exception, “[i]f a jury is discharged without specifying the date, the court upon motion shall fix the date” (id.). The party seeking prejudgment interest bears the burden of demonstrating the date from which interest should be computed… .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate when the damages were incurred. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination that the damages were not incurred until the jury rendered its verdict was warranted … . Kachkovskiy v Khlebopros, 2018 NY Slip Op 05671, Second Dept 8-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5001 (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission on a lease entered by defendants (Budhu and RLRC) just after defendants terminated plaintiff’s services, an action deemed to have been done in bad fact warranting recovery under an implied contract theory and in quantum meruit:

A real estate broker is entitled to recover a commission upon establishing that it (1) is duly licensed, (2) had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) was the procuring cause of the transaction … . There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a licensed brokerage firm. …

The plaintiff established that it had an implied contract to provide brokerage services for Budhu and RLRC. The plaintiff also established that it was the procuring cause of the transaction. In order to establish that it was the procuring cause of a transaction, a “broker must establish that there was a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” … . While the plaintiff was not involved in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the deal between RLRC and Hillside, it established that it created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded, and that it generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the transaction… . Even if the plaintiff were not the procuring cause of the transaction, it would still be entitled to recover a commission, as the evidence established that Budhu and RLRC terminated the plaintiff’s activities in bad faith and as a mere last-minute device to escape the payment of the commission … .

Moreover, even assuming that there was no contract, express or implied, between the parties, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for its services in quantum meruit in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of Budhu and RLRC … . The plaintiff established that it performed services in good faith, that Budhu and RLRC accepted the services, that it expected to be compensated therefor, and the reasonable value of the services … . Gluck & Co. Realtors, LLC v Burger King Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05668, Second Dept 8-8-18

REAL ESTATE (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/BROKER’S COMMISSION (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMISSION  (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a release entered after settlement with the insurer of the other car involved in the accident precluded appellant’s attempt to claim supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from the insurer of the car in which appellant was a passenger:

“A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” … . A valid general release will apply not only to known claims, but “may encompass unknown claims, . . . if the parties so intend and the agreement is fairly and knowingly made'” … . “Where a release is unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the plain language of the agreement” … . Here, the general release, in clear and unambiguous terms, releases all claims and future claims the appellant had or may have against the petitioner by reason of the subject accident. The plain language of the release thus precludes the appellant’s SUM claim against the petitioner. Matter of Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. v Fiumara, 2018 NY Slip Op 05681, Second Dept 8-8-18

INSURANCE LAW (RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (INSURANCE LAW, RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE, INSURANCE LAW, RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS (RELEASE ENTERED WITH THE INSURER OF THE OTHER CAR INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT PRECLUDED CLAIM FOR SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) BENEFITS AGAINST INSURER OF THE CAR IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS A PASSENGER (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release, which purported to cover future actions in a medical malpractice suit resulting from a hospital (NSUH) admission, did not preclude a second suit that arose from a second hospital admission:

The parties settled Action No. 1 … and executed … a release that released NSUH “and all . . . related business entities . . . and all . . . employees, physicians, [and] servants, . . . from all past, present and future [*2]claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, wrongful death or bodily or personal injury claims . . . of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, based upon any legal or equitable theory, . . . which the RELEASORS, their heirs, executors, administrators . . . hereafter can, shall, or may now have, or may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, against RELEASEES for, upon, or by reason or any actual or alleged act, omission, transaction, practice, conduct, occurrence, or other matter . . . from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE” (hereinafter the release). * * *

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, NSUH failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the release executed by the parties settling Action No. 1 was intended to preclude the plaintiff from recovering for claims that allegedly arose during and as a result of the second admission, which were not yet in dispute at the time the release was executed … . While the plaintiff may have been aware of the incident giving rise to Action No. 2 when she signed the release, any such awareness is insufficient, itself, to establish that the release was intended to cover any potential claims which were not the subject of Action No. 1. Chiappone v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05569, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

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))

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