You are here: / Contract Law

THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment should not have been awarded to the plaintiff (Related) in this breach of contract action. The agreement provided that loan payments be made to plaintiff by the defendant (Tesla) from available cash. The existence of available cash was deemed a condition precedent. Because plaintiff could not show defendant had available case, summary judgment was not an available remedy:

A condition precedent is “an act or event, other than a lapse of time, which, unless the condition is excused, must occur before a duty to perform a promise in the agreement arises” … . The term sheet does not contain an unconditional promise by Tesla to repay the cash advances, distinguishing the transactions from the typical loan arrangement, which involves an unconditional promise to repay the amount advanced. Rather, pursuant to the waterfall provision, Tesla was to repay the cash advances from cash that was available for distribution after the payment of taxes. Related failed to establish that this condition precedent was satisfied, and its motion for summary judgment should have therefore been denied once the court determined that Tesla presently had no “available cash” to repay Related … . Related Cos., L.P. v Tesla Wall Sys., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02122, First Dept 3-27-18

CONTRACT LAW (CONDITION PRECEDENT, THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONDITION PRECEDENT (CONTRACT LAW, THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a cell phone tower lease with a municipality did not expire. An extension of the lease was ratified by the municipality when it continued to accept lease payments after the expiration of the first five-year term:

… [I]n seeking a declaration that the lease expired … , the plaintiffs alleged that the Village’s Board of Trustees … only authorized the lease for a term of five years. Indeed, the resolution provided that “the term of the leases [sic] shall not exceed a period of five (5) years from the date upon which it is executed.” The lease, however, provided that the initial term of the lease “will be five (5) years from the Commencement Date'” … , “and shall automatically renew for up to ten (10) additional terms of five (5) years each.

Verizon and AG separately moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lease did not expire … , because the Village ratified the lease by accepting rental payments, issuing building permits, and granting variance applications in connection with the construction of the cell tower. …

“A contract that is not approved by a relevant municipal or governmental body, as required by law, rule, or regulation, may be ratified by the municipality or government body by subsequent conduct, such as by making payments pursuant to the contract” … . Giunta v AG Towers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01905, Second Dept 3-21-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RATIFICATION, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/RATIFICATION (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))

THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, in a complex decision covering many issues not summarized here, determined that the language of the contracts and agreements re: the construction of new schools precluded the City of Buffalo Joint Schools Construction Board (Board) from learning the program manager’s (LPC’s) construction and administrative costs. The Board entered construction agreements with LPC as an agent of the City of Buffalo School District (District):

In 2014 and 2015, after operating under the [relevant contracts and agreements] for over 12 years, the Board and the District refused to process or pay the last four payment requisitions until LPC provided them with documentation concerning LPC’s actual construction and administrative costs, information that LPC contended was confidential, proprietary and not subject to disclosure under the [relevant contracts and agreements]. * * *

[The relevant agreements provide] the District with audit and examination rights to any and all records related to the ” construction contingency’ ” portion of the stipulated sum. Nevertheless, that section further provides that, “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the foregoing audit and examination rights do no[t] apply to any records maintained by [LPC] (or . . . on behalf of [LPC]) with respect to any Project Administration Costs or Construction Costs other than records directly related to the expenditure of the construction contingency.’ ” …

The contract is a stipulated-sum construction contract. In such contracts, “[t]he owner is obligated to pay the contractor the fixed amount no matter what it costs to finish the work” and, generally, “the owner is not entitled to review the costs that the contractor incurs during the project” … . Considering the general purpose of the contract and the fact that the [related agreements] specifically provide that the audit rights for construction contingency funds did not apply to records concerning LPC’s “Project Administration Costs or Construction Costs” unrelated to the construction contingency, we conclude that the only reasonable way to interpret [the applicable contract] is to determine that it applies to the District’s actual costs only. City of Buffalo City Sch. Dist. v LPCiminelli, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01832, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))/STIPULATED SUM CONTRACTS (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision dealing with several related issues not summarized here, determined a snow removal contractor (Cristi) and parking lot manager (Five Star) demonstrated their contracts with Port Authority did not give rise to liability for a slip and fall in the parking lot:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, does not generally give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party unless one of three exceptions applies: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . …

The submissions in support of their respective motions show that neither Cristi nor Five Star created or exacerbated the icy condition and thereby launched an instrument of harm. Rather, they merely failed to be ” an instrument for good,’ which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party” …

The contracts between the Port Authority, Cristi, and Five Star were not comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance agreements intended to displace the Port Authority’s general duty to keep the premises in a safe condition … . Castillo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 01593, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL,  SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESPINAL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined a defamation action against an unincorporated association (the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of New York) was properly dismissed, but the defamation action against individuals acting in individual capacities should not have been dismissed. The court further held that the breach of contract action against the association should not have been dismissed. The action was brought against a lodge after plaintiff was accused of fraud and was expelled:

Actions against unincorporated associations, whether for breaches of agreements or for tortious wrongs, are limited to cases where the individual liability of every single member can be alleged and proven … . The Martin rule “bars all actions against an unincorporated voluntary membership association, and bars claims against the officers of such an association in their representative capacities where there is no allegation that the members of the association authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct complained of” … .

Here, the plaintiff made no factual allegations in the complaint or in opposition to the motion to dismiss to indicate that all members of the Grand Lodge did in fact ratify the allegedly defamatory statements. …

… [T]he Martin rule does not purport to immunize individual members of an unincorporated association, acting in their individual capacities, from the consequences of their own tortious conduct… . …

Moreover, the Martin rule does not preclude breach of contract causes of action against unincorporated associations and their officers acting in their representative capacities based on an allegedly wrongful expulsion from the association … . Bidnick v Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 01591, Second Dept 3-14-18

CORPORATION LAW (UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS (MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MARTIN RULE (UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAMATION (UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MASONS (UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s recovery for injury to a kitten shipped by air was subject to the $50 limit in the air waybill signed by plaintiff:

An air waybill forms the basic contract between a shipper and an air carrier … . In order to enforce a limited liability provision contained in an air waybill, a carrier must demonstrate that its contract satisfies the released-valuation doctrine … . Under the released-valuation doctrine, the shipper “is deemed to have released the carrier from liability beyond a stated amount” in exchange for a low shipping rate … . The shipper is bound by the limited liability provision if he or she (1) has reasonable notice of the rate structure, and (2) is given a fair opportunity to pay a higher rate in order to obtain greater protection … . … The fact that the language setting forth the limited liability provision is found on the reverse side of the air waybill does not render the provision unable to satisfy the released-valuation doctrine … . …

Here, the air waybill signed by the plaintiff’s shipper demonstrates that the shipper did not declare a value for the kitten and no additional coverage was purchased. The terms of the air waybill also provided a fair opportunity to purchase greater coverage … . …… [T]he plaintiff had the burden of showing that she did not have a fair opportunity to purchase greater liability protection … . The plaintiff, who submitted only her attorney’s affirmation and certain veterinary bills in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was not given the opportunity to purchase additional coverage. Lentini v Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01597, Second Dept 3-14-18

CONTRACT LAW (RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (SECOND DEPT))/AIR WAYBILL (RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, AIR WAYBILL, RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s(Kaufman’s) motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been granted. There were written contracts between plaintiff and Kaufman indicating plaintiff was an independent contractor. Plaintiff alleged he was a partner, entitled to 50% of the income. The proof submitted by plaintiff, a vague email and testimony by an accountant that plaintiff and Kaufman often received equal pay, was deemed insufficient:

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party”… . In considering such a motion, ” the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion, made at the close of trial, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The existence of a partnership agreement between Kaufman and the plaintiffs with respect to Kaufman’s businesses cannot be inferred from the evidence presented at the trial. The parties’ relationship was governed by written agreements. The 2005 email which makes reference to splitting income is not sufficient to draw such an inference. Although an email message can constitute a binding contract if it sets forth the material terms of the agreement, and contains an expression of mutual assent … , the email in question fails to set forth the material terms of a partnership agreement. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have concluded that there was such a partnership agreement in this case. Weg v Kaufman, 2018 NY Slip Op 01567, Second Dept 3-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4401  (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s negligence action against a security company (US Security) hired by Kmart did not state a cause of action for tort liability stemming from a contract (Espinal criteria). Plaintiff was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee in a Kmart store. The First Department held that plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and US Security, did not rely to his detriment on the performance of US Security’s duties, and US Security did not entirely supplant Kmart’s duty to secure the store:

Plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security, which contains a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause … .

Nor can a duty be imposed on U.S. Security on the ground either that plaintiff relied to his detriment on the continued performance of U.S. Security’s contractual duties or that U.S. Security had entirely displaced Kmart’s duty to secure its store … . Plaintiff’s affidavit says nothing about having knowledge of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security or about detrimental reliance on U.S. Security’s continued performance thereunder … .

As for entire displacement, while the written scope of U.S. Security’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store makes it clear that, in actual practice, U.S. Security’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting … . Furthermore, U.S. Security did not totally displace Kmart’s duty to secure its store, because Kmart retained supervisory authority over the security guards and required U.S. Security’s staff to complete training in accordance with its (Kmart’s) safety policies and procedures … . Santiago v K Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296, First Dept 2-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT LIABILITY, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM, ESPINAL CRITERIA, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s silence after defendant real estate broker’s counteroffer for the brokerage fee, coupled with plaintiff’s going ahead to enter the lease procured by the broker, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer:

…[T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to a judgment declaring that the brokerage commission due was five percent of the rent for the first five years of the lease agreement by submitting evidence that the defendant did not reject the counteroffer, but instead proceeded to have its client enter into the lease agreement. “While mere silence, when not misleading, cannot be construed as acceptance, a counteroffer may be accepted by conduct”… . The defendant’s conduct of moving forward with the lease agreement upon receiving the plaintiff’s counteroffer established that the objective manifestation of the parties’ intent was an agreement to the brokerage rate set forth in the counteroffer … . Gator Hillside Vil., LLC v Schuckman Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/COUNTEROFFER  (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKERAGE FEE, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/SILENCE (CONTRACT LAW, COUNTEROFFER, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this personal injury action, based upon a release signed by the plaintiff, was properly denied. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit which, together with the complaint, raised the issue whether the release was procured by fraud:

“In resolving a motion for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the plaintiff’s allegations are to be treated as true, all inferences that reasonably flow therefrom are to be resolved in his or her favor, and where, as here, the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion, it is to be construed in the same favorable light” … . “A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a release “should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged” … .

Here, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants submitted an affidavit of their insurance carrier’s claims representative and a copy of the release signed by the plaintiff, which, by its terms, barred the instant action against them … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendants procured the release by fraud, whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances which indicate unfairness, and whether it was “not fairly and knowingly made” … . Sacchetti-Virga v Bonilla, 2018 NY Slip Op 01210, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (RELEASES, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (a)(5) (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy