You are here: / Contract Law
,

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement cause of action and the punitive damages demand should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff contracted with defendants to transport his brother by air ambulance from Puerto Rico to New York. Plaintiff alleged no respiratory therapist was on the plane and the plane was not equipped with advanced life support equipment:

​

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement. Contrary to the court’s determination, the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as it alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract … .Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged misrepresentations of fact were not false and, therefore, not misrepresentations at all … .

​

The Supreme Court also erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover punitive damages. The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not engage in conduct having a high degree of moral culpability which manifested a conscious disregard for the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard … . Greenberg v Meyreles, 2017 NY Slip Op 08351, Second Dept 11-20-17

 

FRAUD (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff, an associate in defendant law firm, was entitled to 5% of the $5 million fee collected by the law firm in an action on behalf of a client brought in by the associate. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under the Labor Law 190 cause of action, as well as under the breach of contract cause of action. The Fourth Department determined the verdict on the Labor Law 190 cause of action should have been set aside because, under the law described in the jury instructions, the jury should have found the payment to be “incentive compensation” which is excluded from the type of pay covered by the Labor Law:

​

Applying the facts to the law as stated in the jury charge, the evidence establishes that the collections bonus was “incentive compensation” because it was based on more than just plaintiff’s performance. Among other things, the matter took considerable effort from other attorneys, some of whom billed far more hours on the matter than plaintiff, and a partner conducted international arbitration and filed enforcement proceedings to secure a settlement collectible by the client. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, inasmuch as the collections bonus was calculated as a percentage of the fee in the matter and “the fee collected” by defendant was based on the abovementioned factors outside of plaintiff’s control, the jury could not have rationally concluded that the collections bonus was anything other than “incentive compensation” excluded from protection under Labor Law § 193 (1). …

​

… [T]he evidence adduced by plaintiff established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in which at least one of defendant’s partners promised to pay plaintiff a bonus consisting of 5% of the fee collections from any client generated by plaintiff if such fees exceeded $100,000, that plaintiff subsequently performed under the agreement by generating the client, and that defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the collections bonus, thereby causing plaintiff to incur damages … . Doolittle v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 08126, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (INCENTIVE COMPENSATION, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this contract dispute should have been granted. Defendant signed the contract as president of a corporation which existed but was misnamed. Defendant could not be held personally liable:

​

“According to the well settled general rule, individual officers or directors are not personally liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a corporation if they do not purport to bind themselves individually’ . . . However, it is also well established that an agent who acts on behalf of a nonexistent principal may be held personally liable on the contract”… . “The rule [was] designed to protect a party who enters into a contract where the other signatory represents that he is signing on behalf of a business entity that in fact does not exist, under any name . . . [Thus,] as long as the identity of the corporation can be reasonably established from the evidence[,] . . . [an e]rror in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant to convey’ . . . In such a situation, . . . there is no need or basis to impose personal liability on the person who signed the contract as agent for the entity”… . “Accordingly, absent an allegation that, at the time of the contract, a plaintiff was under an actual misapprehension that there was some other, unincorporated group with virtually the same name as that of the actual business entity, the [c]ourt will not permit the [plaintiff] to capitalize on [a] technical naming error in contravention of the parties’ evident intentions’ ” … .

Thus, courts have determined that the individual who signed the contract may be liable where there was no existing corporation under any name because, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has “no remedy except against the individuals who acted as agents of those purported corporations”… . Where, as here, there was an existing corporation and merely a misnomer in the name of the corporation, courts have declined to impose liability on the individual who signed the contract because the plaintiff has a remedy against the existing, albeit misnamed, corporation… .

Here, we conclude that no one was under an actual misapprehension that there was an entity with the name. TBW, INC. J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08106, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (CORPORATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seller of the property demonstrated it could not be held liable for the underground gas tanks found on the property. The purchase and sale contract indicated only that the seller was not aware of any underground fuel tanks:

​

The court properly found that defendant did not breach the contract by failing to disclose the presence of underground gas tanks on the property. …[D]efendant guaranteed and warranted only that it had not generated, stored or disposed of hazardous materials and had no knowledge of the previous presence of such materials on the property. Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was responsible for the presence of the gas tanks or had any knowledge of it. The former owner of the property and a managing member of defendant testified that he was unaware of the presence of the gas tanks.

In addition, … defendant disclaimed and [did not make] any warranties or representations concerning environmental conditions. Plaintiff acknowledged that it was relying solely on its own expertise and consultants in this regard, and was purchasing the property “as is, where is” … . West 17th St. & Tenth Ave. Realty, LLC v N.E.W. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08088, First Dept 11-16-17

 

REAL ESTATE (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a complex action involving Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and common law negligence causes of action, as well as several contractual and implied indemnification issues, and insurance coverage and duty to defend and indemnify issues. The decision lays out the black letter law on all the issues, illustrates how the appellate courts analyze summary judgment motions, and is well worth reading for an overview of the complexity of a construction accident case involving property owners, several insurance policies, and layers of contractors. Plaintiff fell off a ladder that had been placed on an uneven floor. There are too many substantive issues to fairly summarize them here. With respect to the Labor Law issues, the court wrote:

​

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. … The plaintiff used the last available ladder in his work area. According to the plaintiff, this ladder was missing two of its rubber feet, and was missing the lowest rung. The plaintiff testified that the floor was “not finished” and that it was partially covered in concrete and partially covered in rubble. The plaintiff indicated that there were “all types of things” strewn on the ground and that the floor “was not level.” The plaintiff stated that, as he was standing on the ladder to perform his work, the ladder “shook,” and he “lost [his] balance” and fell.

​

The … defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as it was based on Industrial Code … . Contrary to their contention, the …defendants did not make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . …

​

“Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . “These two categories should be viewed in the disjunctive” … . Where, as here, “an accident is alleged to involve both a dangerous condition on the premises and the means and methods’ of the work, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards” … .

Here, in moving for summary judgment, the defendants failed to address the allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was injured due to the dangerous or defective premises conditions at the work site. Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the plaintiff was not ultimately required to demonstrate that the Mall defendants actually exercised supervisory control.

“[W]hen the manner and method of work is at issue in a Labor Law § 200 analysis” the issue is “whether the defendant had the authority to supervise or control the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work performed by the plaintiff. Poalacin v Mall Props., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

,

PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judgment of foreclosure and sale was properly granted. Defendant claimed he was tricked into signing the construction mortgage. The Second Department noted that a construction mortgage is not subject to the requirements of Banking Law §§ 6-l and 590. And the Second Department held that a party is deemed to have read a signed document:

 

“A party who executes a contract is presumed to know its contents and to assent to them”… .Thus, “[a] party who signs a document without any valid excuse for having failed to read it is conclusively bound by its terms” … , “unless there is a showing of fraud, duress, or some other wrongful act on the part of any party to the contract” … . “The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish the element of justifiable reliance on alleged misrepresentations … , since the documents were provided to him, and he and his attorney could have read them. Nor has the defendant established any other valid excuse for his purported failure to read the construction mortgage and related documents before signing them. Prompt Mtge. Providers of N. Am., LLC v Zarour, 2017 NY Slip Op 08028, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

FORECLOSURE (PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/BANKING LAW (FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORECLOSURE, PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MORTGAGES (CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGES, FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT))

,

SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the separation agreement should not have been interpreted to require that the cost of college tuition be split 50-50. The agreement simply capped each party’s contribution at 50%. Family Court must determine the proper contribution based upon resources. The wife’s failure to pay anything, however, violated the agreement:

​

Here, the parties agreed to “share in the costs of the child’s higher education,” with such contribution being capped at 50% of tuition at a state university, plus the cost of reasonable living expenses. By its plain language, the disputed provision unequivocally demonstrates that the parties intended to encourage and facilitate the child’s pursuit of a college degree and to make some financial contribution — up to, but not necessarily equaling, 50% of the total cost of tuition at a state university — toward that pursuit. In agreeing to contribute, the parties did not use language such as “split” or “50-50,” despite such language appearing elsewhere in the separation agreement, including in the sections addressing dependent care expenses and the cost of health insurance coverage. Given the appearance of such language elsewhere in the agreement, its absence in the relevant provision is telling, as it suggests that the parties did not intend, as Family Court found, to equally split the total cost of the child’s college tuition — subject to the cap — and living expenses … .. Furthermore, while the separation agreement provided that each party’s financial exposure would not exceed the tuition cap, it stopped short of defining the parties’ respective obligations. The absence of language defining their obligations does not render the provision ambiguous. Rather, by its omission, it is apparent that the parties contemplated a later agreement between themselves and, failing that, a subsequent determination by the court as to their respective contributions … .Thus, while we agree that the mother’s failure to contribute anything toward the cost of the child’s college education constituted a willful violation of the separation agreement, Family Court erred in concluding that the parties intended to equally share the total cost of the child’s college tuition and living expenses, subject to the tuition cap, and entering a judgment against the mother in the amount of $28,377.50. Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 2017 NY Slip Op 08062, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW,  SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO , OLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/SEPARATION AGREEMENT (FAMILY LAW, CONTRACT LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGE EXPENSES (FAMILY LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))

CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a contract was not an agreement to agree and was sufficiently definite, and the liquidated damages clause was enforceable. The parties agreed that plaintiff would provide exhibit services at several trade shows with the price amortized over the upcoming shows. Defendant informed plaintiff it was not going to participate in the 2016 shows and this breach of contract action was brought:

​

The agreement itself is … sufficient to establish a binding contract inasmuch as the parties agreed to a fixed cost for each show that defendant was required to attend and set a minimum amount that defendant was obligated to spend in aggregate over the four shows … . …

​

” [W]here the parties have completed their negotiations of what they regard as essential elements, and performance has begun on the good faith understanding that agreement on the unsettled matters will follow, the court will find and enforce a contract even though the parties have expressly left these other elements for future negotiation and agreement, if some objective method of determination is available, independent of either party’s mere wish or desire’ ” … . …

​

“Where, as here, the parties to the agreement were sophisticated business [entities], and the terms of the agreement were mutually negotiated, with each party represented by experienced counsel, a liquidated damages provision which is reached at arm’s length is entitled to deference” … . The evidence in the record … establishes that plaintiff’s damages “are sufficiently difficult to ascertain to satisfy the first requirement of a valid liquidated damages provision” … . With respect to the second requirement, we conclude that the negotiated amount of liquidated damages is not ” conspicuously disproportionate to [plaintiff’s] foreseeable losses’ ” … . RES Exhibit Servs., LLC v Genesis Vision, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07796, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/AGREEMENT TO AGREE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DEFINITENESS DOCTRINE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITIES (CONTRACT LAW, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/

,

CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a contract was not actionable because the consideration for a past or executed promise was not spelled out in it. The court noted that a decision on a motion to dismiss does not become the law of the case in a subsequent motion for summary judgment:

​

General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-1105 provides:

“A promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed.”

It essentially codifies the notion that “[g]enerally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because the detriment did not induce the promise.’ That is, since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise'”… . However, General Obligations Law § 5-1105 makes an exception where the past consideration is explicitly recited in a writing. To qualify for the exception, the description of the consideration must not be “vague” or “imprecise,” nor may extrinsic evidence be employed to assist in understanding the consideration … . * * *

… “[T]he law of the case doctrine does not apply when a motion to dismiss is followed by a summary judgment motion” … . Korff v Corbett, 2017 NY Slip Op 07677, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-1105  (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of tax estoppel prevented defendants from asserting facts contrary to the information provided in the Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report). Plaintiff had a right of first refusal on the sale of defendants’ commercial property. Defendants sold the property without giving plaintiff the right of first refusal, claiming it was not a bona fide sale because the same person controlled the seller and the buyer, an allegation negated by the RPT report:

​

Under the doctrine of tax estoppel, ” [a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in [a] tax return’ ” … . Here, 428 Co. and SS jointly submitted a Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report) … to the Department of Taxation and Finance in which they certified that the transfer of the subject property was not a “sale between related companies or partners in business.”  …

​

The sworn statements made in the RPT report further estop defendants from asserting that various mortgage assumptions worth over $2 million constituted part of the purchase price, and that plaintiff was therefore unwilling to purchase the property “at the same price and under the same terms” … . The instructions for the tax form require that any mortgage assumptions be listed as part of the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and [defendants] did not do so here. … [Defendants] listed only a cash sale price of $238,493 as the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and it is undisputed that plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property for that amount. Amalfi, Inc. v 428 Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06770, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

REAL ESTATE (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX LAW  (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX ESTOPPEL (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

Categories

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

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

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