You are here: / Contract Law
,

NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court correctly found, after a bench trial, that a non-solicitation agreement between defendant Johnson and her employers (plaintiffs) should not be enforced because the agreement was the product of overreaching:

​

Plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that, in imposing the terms of the non-solicitation covenant, they did not engage in “overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, but ha[d] in good faith sought to protect a legitimate interest” … , and they did not meet that burden. The evidence established that the non-solicitation covenant was imposed as a condition of Johnson’s employment, after she had left her former employer and her position there had been filled, which belies plaintiffs’ contention that Johnson’s bargaining position was equal or superior to theirs… . In addition, plaintiffs required all employees, regardless of position, to sign an agreement containing a non-solicitation covenant as a condition of employment, which undercuts plaintiffs’ contention that the covenant was necessary to protect their legitimate business interests … . Finally, the fact that the agreement provides for partial enforcement of the non-solicitation covenant, which is clearly over-broad under New York law, casts doubt on plaintiffs’ good faith in imposing the covenant on Johnson … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00728, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the waiver-of-declaratory-relief clause in the commercial leases was enforceable and precluded both the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action and the availability of a Yellowstone injunction (which would have stayed termination of the lease while the merits are considered). Although not raised below, the appellate court had the authority to consider whether the waiver violated public policy (no public policy violation found). The plaintiffs’ (tenants’) declaratory judgment and Yellowstone injunction actions were in response to the landlord’s notice to cure, which gave the tenants’ 15 days to cure certain alleged lease violations before termination of the leases. The waiver clause included a statement that the parties intended all disputes to be dealt with in summary proceedings:

​

Paragraph 67(H) in the rider of each lease provided that the tenant: “waives its right to bring a declaratory judgment action with respect to any provision of this Lease or with respect to any notice sent pursuant to the provisions of this Lease. Any breach of this paragraph shall constitute a breach of substantial obligations of the tenancy, and shall be grounds for the immediate termination of this Lease. It is further agreed that in the event injunctive relief is sought by Tenant and such relief shall be denied, the Owner shall be entitled to recover the costs of opposing such an application, or action, including its attorney’s fees actually incurred, it is the intention of the parties hereto that their disputes be adjudicated via summary proceedings.” * * *

​

… “[W]here a contract provision is arguably void as against public policy, that issue may be raised for the first time at the Appellate Division by a party, or by the court on its own motion” … . We therefore reach the merits of the public policy issue raised on appeal. * * *

​

Here, the parties were sophisticated entities that negotiated at arm’s length and entered into lengthy and detailed leases defining each party’s rights and obligations with great apparent care and specificity. 159 MP Corp. v Redbridge Bedford, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00537, Second Dept 1-31-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (DECLARATORY RELIEF, YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT,  CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (WAIVER, LANDLORD-TENANT,  CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/COMMERCIAL LEASES (WAIVER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF, YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/WAIVERS (LANDLORD-TENANT, COMMERCIAL LEASES, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CONTRACT LAW, PUBLIC POLICY, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC POLICY (APPEALS, CONTRACTS, CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-attorneys’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action, alleging the failure to return the balance of fees paid, was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged there was an oral agreement to return any few balance remaining when the action was resolved. Defendants did not provide plaintiff with an accounting of the hour spent on the case:

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the breach of contract claim was not adequately pleaded and that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the “voluntary payment doctrine.”

The voluntary payment doctrine “bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law” … . In the context of an attorney-client relationship, the attorney bears the burden of showing that the parties’ fee agreement was fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by plaintiff … .

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for breach of contract based on defendants’ failure to return the unearned balance of his retainer, pursuant to the parties’ oral agreement … . While defendants assert that plaintiff voluntarily made payments to compensate them for their services, they have not established that plaintiff had full knowledge of the relevant facts, such as the number of hours spent by defendants in connection with their representation of him … . Nor did they submit any evidence to show that the amount of plaintiff’s payments was fair and reasonably related to the value of services rendered … . Dubrow v Herman & Beinin, 2018 NY Slip Op 00478, First Dept 1-25-18

ATTORNEYS (FEES, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE (ATTORNEY’S FEES, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a payment was made on an oral contract, thereby taking the contract out of the statute of frauds. The written contract (Assignment of Units) mentioned only a transfer of ownership of Emerson Associates. But there was a question of fact whether the payment was actually made pursuant to an oral contract to transfer ownership of Emerson Partners:​

[Defendant] raised triable issues of fact as to whether [plaintiffs] orally agreed to transfer their ownership interests in Emerson Partners and whether … such an agreement was not invalid under the statute of frauds because … the payments of $230,000 … constituted partial performance unequivocally referable to the oral agreement … . … [T]here was no evidence demonstrating that the alleged oral agreement had ” absolutely no possibility in fact and law'” of being performed within a year … . Meagher v Doscher, 2018 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-24-18

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL CONTRACT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACT (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL CONTRACT,  QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a release which related to a medical center and any joint tortfeasors did not preclude a medical malpractice action against doctors who were not employees of the medical center. The plaintiff had undergone surgery for a deviated septum. During the surgery plainitff’s teeth were damaged by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the medical center. The medical center settled with the plaintiff and plaintiff signed a release. The medical malpractice action against the surgeons was not related to the damaged teeth:

​

… [T]he release is unambiguously limited to tortfeasors jointly liable with the Medical Center. “At common law the joint and several liability imposed on joint tort-feasors was indivisible, and any one of the joint tort-feasors was liable to the injured party for the entire damage”… . A hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of independently retained doctors who are not employees of the hospital or are not held out as agents of the hospital … . Here, the defendants do not contend that the defendant doctors were employees of the Medical Center, or that they held themselves out as agents of the Medical Center. As such, there would be no basis for joint liability with the Medical Center. Further, the injuries claimed in this action are different from those claimed against and settled with the Medical Center. The lost crown and broken teeth caused by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the Medical Center, are completely distinct from the damages claimed in this action. Hoffmann v Horn, 2018 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive, substantive, two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether an opening in the floor constituted an open and obvious condition and whether the contractor (Harbour) which removed an obsolete tank, exposing the opening, was liable to plaintiff for “launching an instrument of harm.” Plaintiff was working near the opening, facing away from it, when he stepped back into the opening and fell. Plaintiff had taken a picture of the opening months before and shown it to the property owner’s manager. The dissenting justices argued that the contract between Harbour and the property owner did not obligate it to repair the opening which was revealed when the tank was removed and, therefore, Harbour did not breach a duty of care owed to plaintiff:

​

Even if Harbour’s contract did not require that it cover, remediate, fill in or repair any of the floor openings resulting from its work, Harbour did not take even minimal corrective measures to protect the exposed opening in the floor after it removed the obsolete oil tank. Thus, while its removal of the tank was in fulfillment of its contractual obligation, a reasonable jury could find that Harbour’s leaving an exposed and unprotected opening in the floor exposed, caused or created a dangerous condition even if previously the metal plate containing the opening was not unsafe. The dissent’s view relies on cases where the defendant did not owe a duty of care because the condition the plaintiff complained of was precisely what was called for in the defendant’s contract … .  … There is a view of the facts that Harbour, by leaving the exposed opening without any kind of warning or minimal protection, created or caused an unsafe condition, or made the previously obscured opening in the metal plate “less safe” than before Harbour did its work … . Thus the issue is not whether Harbour had a contractual obligation to protect the opening, but whether by leaving the opening in the metal plate exposed it created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00347, First Dept 1-18-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ESPINAL, TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY,  QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/LAUNCH INSTRUMENT OF HARM (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS  (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))

,

LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the limitation of liability provision precluded recovery for breach of contract for any amount over the limitation. The contract was an exclusive licensing agreement (ELA) for a securities trading system (ATS). The First Department noted that it was proper to consider the limitation of liability, an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss:

​

It was not error for Supreme Court to rule on the enforceabilty of the liability limitation provision, although it is an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss. In the ordinary course of deciding motions, courts consider whether documentary evidence establishes an asserted defense, in this case a defense concerning the limitation of liability provisions in the parties’ contracts … .

​

New York courts routinely enforce such liability-limitation provisions, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties. The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[a] limitation on liability provision . . . represents the parties’ Agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor.* * * [The parties] may later regret their assumption of the risks of non-performance in this manner, but the courts let them lie on the bed they made”… . However, such clauses are unenforceable when, “[i]n contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing. This can be explicit, as when it is fraudulent, malicious or prompted by the sinister intention of one acting in bad faith. Or, when, as in gross negligence, it betokens a reckless indifference to the rights of others, it may be implicit” … . Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00380, First Dept 1-15-18

CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))

THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE RENDERED THE CONTRACT AN UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this contract action was properly granted. The agreement for the purchase of satellite television equipment was silent about fees for Internet service, which constituted a material term. Therefore the agreement was merely an unenforceable agreement to agree:

“To create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms” … . “[A] court cannot enforce a contract unless it is able to determine what in fact the parties have agreed to” … . Accordingly, “[i]f an agreement is not reasonably certain in its material terms, there can be no legally enforceable contract” … . “While there are some instances where a party may agree to be bound to a contract even where a material term is left open . . . there must be sufficient evidence that both parties intended that arrangement” … . “[A] mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … , unless “a methodology for determining the material terms can be found within the four corners of the agreement or the agreement refers to an objective extrinsic event, condition, or standard by which the material terms may be determined” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence establishing that the contract lacked a material term regarding the price or fees to be paid to the plaintiff for Internet-related service, and therefore constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree … . Total Telcom Group Corp. v Kendal on Hudson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-10-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE RENDERED THE CONTRACT AN UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT))/AGREEMENT TO AGREE  (THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE RENDERED THE CONTRACT AN UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT))/MATERIAL TERM (CONTRACT LAW, THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE RENDERED THE CONTRACT AN UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT))/PRICE (CONTRACT LAW, MATERIAL TERM, THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE RENDERED THE CONTRACT AN UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT))

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the defendants who had contracted with the property owner/manager to remove snow from the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell on ice were not liable to plaintiff under an Espinal exception:

It is well-settled that a party that contracts with a property owner to provide snow and ice removal services cannot be liable to a third party who is injured on the property unless “(1) . . . the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties launche[d] a force or instrument of harm; (2) . . . the plaintiff detrimentally relie[d] on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties; [or] (3) . . . the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002] … ).

… [W]hile [the snow removal contractor] retained some independent authority, we cannot conclude that the agreement “displaced entirely” [the property owner's] duty to maintain the property … . …

[The defendants' meteorologist's] affidavit fails to raise a material question of fact, inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates only that defendants may have failed to clear all of the ice and snow, a fact that does not constitute the affirmative creation of a dangerous condition … . Hutchings v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00057, Third Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACT LAW, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the denial of the defendants' motions for summary judgment in this third party assault case. The defendants are the owner-operators of a domestic violence shelter and the security company hired by the shelter. Plaintiff child, CB, was shot while CB and his father, Bobby B, were waiting for CB's mother to come down to the gate to accompany CB back to where she and CB were residing in the shelter. Bobby B had asked the guards to let the child in because Bobby B had been followed by several men. The child was not let in. The guards called CB's mother a couple of times telling her the child was waiting. One of the men who followed Bobby B approached with a gun and demanded Bobby B's jacket. In a struggle the gun discharged striking and paralyzing CB:

With respect to the common-law duty, landowners have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances”…, which includes taking minimal safety precautions to protect against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons … .

We reject defendants' contention that they had no common-law duty to CB because the shooting took place outside the building, i.e., because CB was on the street side of the gate. Plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether the security booth, gate, and recessed area that CB was standing in were part of the shelter property and not the public sidewalk. However, even if CB was not standing on shelter property, it cannot be said that under any circumstance [the owner] owed no duty to him. …

​

Although the contract [with defendant security company] clearly provides that CB is an intended third-party beneficiary, there are issues of fact as to the benefits that CB is entitled to under the contract. It should be noted, however, that allowing a child in danger to enter the shelter does not appear to be in derogation of any rules prohibiting unarmed guards from intervening in an altercation. CB v Howard Sec., 2018 NY Slip Op 00087, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT BY THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (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