You are here: / Contract Law
,

ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the insurer was entitled to summary judgment because, notwithstanding the way the insurer handled the water damage claim, the insurer’s actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s closing of its business:

Consequential damages are damages that do not directly flow from a breach of contract … . Proximate cause is an essential element of a breach of contract cause of action … . “[E]very contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” … . In an insurance contract context, consequential damages resulting from a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be asserted, “so long as the damages were within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting” … . “Consequential damages, designed to compensate a party for reasonably foreseeable damages, must be proximately caused by the breach” … Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause. However, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established fact … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that their alleged injurious conduct in handling the plaintiff’s claim was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss of business. It was undisputed that the stop work order issued shortly after the water leak, for reasons unrelated to the defendants, prevented the plaintiff from securing the necessary work permits prior to ceasing operations permanently. Lola Roberts Beauty Salon, Inc. v Leading Ins. Group Ins. Co., Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 02605, Second Dept 4-18-18​

​INSURANCE LAW (ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INSURANCE LAW, LOSS OF BUSINESS, PROXIMATE CAUSE, ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INSURANCE LAW, LOSS OF BUSINESS, ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))

,

ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a written guarantee to pay the debt of another was not enforceable because no consideration for the guarantee was included in the written guarantee. The 2nd Department further held that an oral guarantee would have been enforceable if it was induced by plaintiff’s promise to hold off on bringing suit.  But only plaintiff’s counsel made that argument unsupported by an affidavit from the plaintiff:

… “[N]othing” in the writing supported the plaintiff’s claim that [she] had agreed to “forbear() pursuing a claim” in exchange for the promised payments]). In the absence of such a binding promise by plaintiff, the guaranty is unenforceable for want of consideration. “Unless both parties to a contract are bound, so that either can sue the other for a breach, neither is bound” … . …

Case law has established that an oral promise to guarantee the debt of another may be enforced, notwithstanding General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(2), if the plaintiff “prove[s the promise] is supported by new consideration moving to the promisor and beneficial to him and that the promisor has become in the intention of the parties a principal debtor primarily liable” … . Thus, plaintiff could enforce [the] guaranty if she could prove, through parol evidence, that he gave her the guaranty in exchange for her unwritten promise to forbear from suing him until the due date of the guaranty, which would constitute new consideration beneficial to him. Plaintiff fails, however, to offer any admissible evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertions by her counsel) that she actually made such a promise. Reddy v Mihos, 2018 NY Slip Op 02565, First Dept 4-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (GUARANTEE, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/GUARANTEE (CONTRACT LAW, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial court erred when it deviated from a stipulation entered into by the parties concerning the measure of damages for trees inadvertently cut and removed from plaintiffs’ property by defendants:

… Supreme Court erred in deviating from their stipulation in rendering the damages award. No grounds have been shown to vacate the parties’ clearly expressed agreement as to the merchantability of the various trees or the methodology to be used in formulating the award. As the parties here were “free to chart their own course [and] fashion the basis upon which [this] particular controversy [would] be resolved” … , Supreme Court was not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the parties … . We must therefore determine, in the exercise of our discretion and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded as a consequence of defendants’ illegal removal of the 442 trees from plaintiffs’ property. * * *

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and mindful of the overriding purpose and intent of RPAPL 861, we find that plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages of $250 per tree for the 442 trees cut and removed… . We emphasize that our discretionary determination in this regard is narrow and circumscribed by the parties’ stipulation … , which we are bound to honor. Halstead v Fournia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02525, Third Dept 4-12-18

​REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TIMBER (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TREES (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined negligence causes of action against the distributor (Durst) and (Canje) retailer of a sulfuric acid drain opener, and a negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (launching an instrument of harm) cause of action against the distributor should not have been dismissed:

Because defendant Canje, the retail outlet at which the product was purchased, never agreed to abide by the sale policy of the manufacturer, third-party defendant Hercules Chemical Company, Inc., to restrict the sale of the product to plumbing and/or building professionals, it cannot be held liable for launching a force of harm in negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). However, issues of fact exist whether defendant Durst, the distributor that sold the product to Canje, had a contractual duty to refrain from selling the product to Canje and whether Durst breached this duty and its acknowledged contractual undertakings to take appropriate steps to assure the proper sale and use of the product and to comply with the Seller’s Notice prohibiting sales to non-professionals and the display of the product where it was easily accessible. Durst argues that even if it breached such a duty it did not launch a force or instrument of harm. However, … [t]his case, in which there is evidence that Durst created the unsafe condition by supplying the product without proper safeguards, is … akin to Landon v Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc. (22 NY3d 1 [2013]), in which the Court of Appeals found that the allegation that the defendant’s negligent testing procedures subjected the plaintiff to legal proceedings stated a cause of action based on the launch of a force of harm. Janiya W.-G. v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 02557, First Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, LAUNCH OF IN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INSTRUMENT OF HARM, LAUNCH OF (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, ESPINAL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have vacated a stipulated entered into in open court and signed by an attorney who had represented the plaintiff and had the apparent authority to enter the stipulation. The motion to vacate was made by new counsel hired by plaintiff:

The stipulation, signed by counsel for each party in this action during a court appearance, is a binding contract (see CPLR 2104 … ). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her counsel at the time of the stipulation had the apparent authority to enter into the stipulation. This prior counsel signed and verified the summons and complaint, appeared for the plaintiff at the preliminary conference and the compliance conference, and filed a note of issue, all before entering into the stipulation on the plaintiff’s behalf. The presence of an attorney at pretrial conferences constitutes “an implied representation by [the client] to defendants that [the attorney] had authority” to bind the client to a stipulation … . Indeed, only attorneys who are authorized to enter into binding stipulations may appear at pretrial conferences … . Here, the plaintiff’s engagement of her prior counsel to represent her throughout the litigation and to appear on her behalf at pretrial and compliance conferences precludes her from arguing that prior counsel lacked the authority to bind her to the stipulation. “A stipulation made by the attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney’s actual authority if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the stipulation … . Chae Shin Oh v Jeannot, 2018 NY Slip Op 02446, Second Dept 4-11-18

​ATTORNEYS (STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (ATTORNEYS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (ATTORNEYS, STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendants’ counterclaims against their attorney, David, stated causes of action for fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Defendants alleged that David’s assurances led defendants to sign joint venture agreements to their detriment without carefully reading them. The court noted that, although David was not a signatory to the agreements, the forum selection clauses applied to him because of his relationship with the defendants, as expressed in an email:

The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The well settled principle relied on by David that a party claiming fraudulent inducement cannot be said to have justifiably relied on a representation negated by the plain terms of the contract they signed does not apply here, since his alleged assurances and fraud were the very cause of defendants’ failure to review the documents carefully. As it was reasonable for defendants to rely on the advice of counsel, we also reject David’s arguments premised on the plain language of the agreements that defendants admit they did not read carefully.

Defendants’ allegations describing their attorney-client relationship with David state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. For example, they allege that he served as their attorney for years, both before and during the instant transaction, negotiating unrelated contracts and handling unrelated lawsuits and trusts and estates matters.

While in support of the fraudulent inducement claim defendants allege that the agreements were “brought about by fraud,” because, inter alia, David held himself out as their attorney and caused them to sign unfavorable agreements that he drafted, in contrast, in support of the fraud claim defendants focus on events following the execution of the agreements, namely, David’s “scheme to manufacture a bogus default” of the loan so as to seize valuable collateral without paying for it. These allegations state a cause of action for fraud … . Suttongate Holdings Ltd. v Laconm Mgt. N.V., 2018 NY Slip Op 02424, First Dept 4-10-18

​FRAUD (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (ATTORNEYS, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent conveyance allegations, which were made “upon information and belief,” were insufficient, and the tortious interference with contract allegations were insufficient because there was no allegation the contract would not have been breached but for the defendant’s conduct:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to transfer and dispose of the assets of several related entities (the judgment debtors) in order to thwart plaintiff’s ability to collect debts owed by those entities, including judgments in two related actions.

The actual fraudulent conveyance claims, under the common law and Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL) § 276, should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege fraudulent intent with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . The key allegations were made “[u]pon information and belief,” without identifying the source of the information … . Moreover, the timing of the allegedly fraudulent transfers – beginning two years before the judgment debtors incurred the subject debts – undermines the claim of fraudulent intent… .

The constructive fraudulent conveyance claims pursuant to DCL 273, 274, and 275 should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the transfers were made without fair consideration, as the relevant allegations were all made “[u]pon information and belief”…

Because the viability of the claims under DCL 276-a, 278, and 279 depends on the viability of the other fraudulent conveyance claims, these claims should likewise be dismissed.

The tortious interference claim should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the contract “would not have been breached but for’ the defendant’s conduct” .. . The relevant allegations were vague and conclusory and supported by “mere speculation” … . Carlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02436, First Dept 4-10-18

​DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF (COMPLAINT, (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINT (UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s breach of an oral contract cause of action properly survived a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was an at-will employee of a law firm and sought to enforce an oral agreement entitling him to 50% of the fees generated by work he brought in. In addition the court noted that the breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment were properly pled in the alternative:

The statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]) does not bar the alleged oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant law firm, pursuant to which the firm agreed to pay plaintiff 50% of the legal fees it earned on cases that he procured or originated and performed work on. In pertinent part, the statute renders void an agreement that “[b]y its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” The fact that plaintiff was an at-will employee, i.e., he could be terminated at any time … , made the oral agreement capable of completion within the one-year period … . The fact that legal fees earned during the one-year period would not be paid until after the period had ended did not make the agreement incapable of completion within the period … .

Plaintiff’s allegations, supplemented by email and affidavits by other associates at the firm attesting to a course of dealing, state a cause of action against the law firm for breach of implied contract…  and unjust enrichment… . These causes of action are properly pleaded in the alternative … . Goldfarb v Romano, 2018 NY Slip Op 02411, First Dept 4-5-18

​CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACT (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/IMPLIED CONTRACT (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an enforceable real estate purchase contract had been formed and plaintiff’s motion to conform the complaint to the proof at trial should have been granted. The court noted that the parties’ expectation that a more formal contract will be executed later is not really relevant:

Although Berger [defendant’s principal] testified that he expected that a final contract would be signed after it had been put in “proper form” by an attorney, “the existence of a binding contract is not dependent on the subjective intent of [the parties]” … . “In determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look, rather, to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds” … . Notably, the …  contract contains all of the essential terms of a contract for the sale of real property, designated the parties, and identified and described the subject matter of the contract . The contract was signed … , and all changes to the contract were initialed … . Moreover, the contract contained no provision indicating that an additional signed agreement would be necessary to create a binding agreement … and, even where the parties “anticipat[e] that a more formal contract will be executed later, the contract is enforceable if it embodies all the essential terms of the agreement” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to conform its complaint to the proof at trial (see CPLR 3025[c]). “[A]bsent prejudice, courts are free to permit amendment even after trial” … . “The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment” … . “Prejudice, of course, is not found in the mere exposure of the defendant to greater liability. Instead, there must be some indication that the defendant has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of his position” … . Here, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants failed to show that the amendment would hinder the preparation of their cases or prevent them from taking some measure in support of their positions at trial and, therefore, the plaintiff’s motion to conform its complaint to the proof should have been granted. Metropolitan Lofts of NY, LLC v Metroeb Realty 1, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02319, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CONTRACT LAW CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPLAINT (CONFORM TO PROOF AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFORM TO PROOF AT TRIAL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

WIFE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring opinion, determined the wife in this divorce proceeding raised a question of fact about the validity of the prenuptial agreement:

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the wife, we find that the wife carried her burden of raising a material issue of fact. In opposition to the husband’s motion, the wife submitted an affidavit in which she provided a contrasting version of events surrounding the execution of the prenuptial agreement. She stated therein that shortly before the wedding day, the husband presented her with a prenuptial agreement. The wife, on the advice of her counsel, told the husband that she could not sign it or marry him unless he made some changes — namely, that she would get half the value of the land and house where they resided and 50% of everything they acquired during the marriage. The wife further averred that, on “the very day before the wedding” and as she was making final preparations for the wedding, the husband presented her with a revised prenuptial agreement, told her that he had made the requested changes and assured her that she would be taken care of for the rest of her life.

Moreover, the wife stated that she was given this new prenuptial agreement while standing outside the County Clerk’s office and that the husband “didn’t really give [her] time to even read the document, let alone take it back to the lawyer to look at it again.” She stated that she was feeling stressed and pressured with the wedding planning and “just signed the document.” These facts, if credited, give rise to the inference of overreaching … . Carter v Fairchild-Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 02230, Third Dept 3-29-18

FAMILY LAW (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WIFE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WIFE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING (THIRD DEPT))/PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FAMILY LAW, WIFE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING (THIRD DEPT))/OVERREACHING (FAMILY LAW, CONTRACT LAW, PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WIFE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING (THIRD 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