You are here: / Contract Law
,

CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS DUPLICATED FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a dissenting opinion, determined the fraud cause of action should have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The action is between two telecommunications companies. The allegations involve the responsibility for payment for fraudulent phone calls. Plaintiff (Cronos) alleged the contract required defendant (XComIP) to indemnify it for fraudulent calls. The complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract. However, the fraud allegations were based on speculation about defendant’s intent, i.e., that defendant entered into the contract with the intention to avoid paying for fraudulent calls:

​

Cronos’s fraud cause of action falls short under the principle that a fraud claim is not stated by allegations that simply duplicate, in the facts alleged and damages sought, a claim for breach of contract, enhanced only by conclusory allegations that the pleader’s adversary made a promise while harboring the concealed intent not to perform it. This Court has held numerous times that a fraud claim that “ar[ises] from the same facts [as an accompanying contract claim], s[eeks] identical damages and d[oes] not allege a breach of any duty collateral to or independent of the parties’ agreements” is subject to dismissal as “redundant of the contract claim”… . Thus, where a fraud claim was supported by allegations that the defendants had “misrepresented . . . their intentions with respect to the manner” in which they would perform their contractual duties, we dismissed the fraud claim as duplicative of the plaintiffs’ contract claim because the fraud claim was “based on the same facts that underlie the contract cause of action, [was] not collateral to the contract, and d[id] not seek damages that would not be recoverable under a contract measure of damages” … .

​

… Cronos’s fraud claim is duplicative of its claim for breach of contract, inasmuch as the only fraud alleged is XComIP’s unkept promise to perform certain of its preexisting obligations under the parties’ contract (as alleged by Cronos), for which Cronos seeks exactly the same damages as are sought under the rubric of the claim for breach of contract. Based on Cronos’s own allegations, Cronos’s fraud claim is plainly redundant of its breach-of-contract cause of action. Cronos Group Ltd. v XComIP, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06515, 1st Dept 9-19-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (FRAUD, CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS DUPLICATED FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS DUPLICATED FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a release plaintiff’s decedent (South) agreed to in 1997 did not preclude the instant suit. South alleged he had been exposed to asbestos made by Texaco on board ships during his long career in the Merchant Marine. South died of mesothelioma. The 1997 release mentioned mesothelioma as a possible result of asbestos exposure but the First Department determined it was not clear South knew he was suffering from mesothemiola at the time he signed the release (in return for $1750.00). The case was analyzed under federal admiralty law law (Jones Act):

… [W]e find that the release does not pass muster. To tease out the true intent South had when he signed the release, it is necessary to consider the context in which he did so. The 1997 complaint, while making generalized allegations that South had been exposed to asbestos, is exceedingly vague as to whether he had actually contracted an asbestos-related disease. To be sure, it mentions a “devastating pulmonary disease Plaintiff now suffers” and an exhaustive grab-bag of asbestos-related diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma to brain cancer. However, it is impossible to conclude from the complaint that South had actually received a diagnosis. Indeed, the “meager” consideration he received for resolving the claim suggests that he had not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, much less one even approaching the severity of the mesothelioma that the complaint specifically alleges he had. The complaint leaves open that possibility, to the extent it seeks relief for fear of an asbestos-related disease and not for the disease itself. Accordingly, the risk of contracting an actual asbestos-related disease remained hypothetical to South, and we decline to read the release as if South understood the implications of such a disease but chose nonetheless to release Texaco from claims arising from it.

Further, if South had not received a definitive diagnosis at the time the 1997 complaint was filed, then the release, to the extent it warns him of the possibility of “a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this Release,” does not reflect the actual circumstances known to him, since the words “new” and “different” suggest that South had already been diagnosed with a disease when he executed the release. Rather, the lack of an actual diagnosis reveals the language in the release as mere boilerplate, and not the result of an agreement the parameters of which had been specifically negotiated and understood by South. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06343  First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/MESOPTHEMIOLA (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))

,

FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-employees’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Defendants were subject to deferred compensation agreements (DCA’s) which called for the “for cause” forfeiture of the deferred compensation. Here it was alleged the defendants violated a non-solicitation, non-competition clause and therefore forfeited the deferred compensation. The defendants argued a subsequent document, an “election form” which extended the date on which the deferred compensation was due and payable, and which did not include a “for cause” forfeiture provision, should control. The courts disagreed:

… [T]he Election Forms, by their express language, provide that any deferral of payment of deferred compensation is to be made “in accordance with the terms of the Deferred Compensation Agreement . . . .” The DCAs, as noted, clearly provide in paragraph 4 that deferred compensation is forfeited if the employee is terminated for cause, including violation of non-solicitation or noncompetition covenants. There is no mention in the Election Forms of any intent to override this provision.

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the DCAs specifically provides that their terms “may not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties hereto.” At a minimum, it is commercially reasonable to view the Election Forms, on their face, to be informal human resources administrative forms. In any case, they are not “written instrument[s] signed by the parties [to the DCAs],” as they lack any signature of plaintiffs, as required by paragraph 5 in order to amend the DCAs. Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer,2017 NY Slip Op 06341, First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CONTRACT LAW, FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined further jurisdictional discovery was required before certain causes of action could be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If the relationship with signatories of a contract with a forum selection clause is close enough, non-signatories will be covered by the clause. Discovery was necessary to determine how close the relationship was. The opinion is too detailed and complex to fully summarize here. The crux of the action is the alleged failure of the corporations to pay interest due on notes held by shareholders:

“Under New York law, a signatory to a contract may invoke a forum selection clause against a non-signatory if the non-signatory is closely related’ to one of the signatories such that enforcement of the forum selection clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between the signatory and the party sought to be bound'” … . If the nonsignatory party has an ownership interest or a direct or indirect controlling interest in the signing party … , or, the entities or individuals consulted with each other regarding decisions and were intimately involved in the decision-making process… , then, a finding of personal jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause may be proper, as it achieves the “rationale behind binding closely related entities to the forum selection clause [which] is to promote stable and dependable trade relations.'” … .

Here, plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, by virtue of their senior management positions, power and decision-making authority, and B & B, as the parent company of BTEL and as a principal shareholder of 39.6% of BTEL’s stock, had actual knowledge at the time of the offering that BTEL was insolvent and would be incapable of meeting its obligations under the notes; that they authorized, participated in, and promoted the offering; and that they caused the offering memoranda to be distributed into the marketplace. This is enough, at this stage, to permit jurisdictional discovery as to the nature of B & B’s and the individual defendants’ actual knowledge and role in the offering of the notes, and their responsibilities connected thereto, because this information, which may result in a determination that the nonsignatories are indeed “closely related” to the signing parties, is a fact that cannot be presently known to plaintiffs, but rather, is within the exclusive control of defendants …. . Universal Inv. Advisory SA v Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06344, First Dept 8-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION,  FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (CONTRACT LAW, (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a mistaken start-date in the lease was a sufficient ground for rescission:

Rescission “rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself [or herself] unjustly at the expense of another” … , and is invoked “where the parties can be substantially restored to their status quo ante positions” … . The remedy of rescission may be granted where, as here, a mistake existed at the time the contract was entered into if “the mistake is so material that . . . it goes to the foundation of the agreement”… .

Here, the landlord’s principal admitted at trial that a mistake was made regarding the commencement date of the parties’ lease. Contrary to the landlord’s contention, however, the mistake as to the commencement date related to a material term of the lease … , and substantially defeated the purpose of the lease. K.A.M.M. Group, LLC v 161 Lafayette Realty, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06260, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE, MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))/LEASE (MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))/RESCISSION (LEASE, MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))

,

HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiffs (heath services providers, hereinafter “the PC”) sued defendant health plan (Fidelis) alleging the health plan did not have grounds for terminating the PC’s contract. The court held the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing, as well as a cause of action alleging a violation of Public Health Law 4406-d:

Even if a party is not in breach of its express contractual obligations, it may be in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it exercises a contractual right as part of a scheme to deprive the other party of the benefit of its bargain … . Technically complying with the terms of a contract while depriving the plaintiff of the benefit of the bargain may constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . Further, “[w]here the contract contemplates the exercise of discretion, this pledge includes a promise not to act arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that discretion”… .

… The allegations in the complaint that the defendants acted in bad faith by terminating the agreement without justification and by fabricating information to try to justify the termination because the plaintiffs “were determined to be outliers’ with regard to the number and cost of those medical services provided by Plaintiffs to Defendants’ members” were sufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract based upon the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. * * *

… [T]he PC stated a cause of action to recover damages for violation of Public Health Law § 4406-d. The PC is a health care professional that contracted with a health care plan and, therefore, falls within the purview of Public Health Law § 4406-d(2)(a). In addition, the PC is a member of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted. The statute provides for enhanced health care provider protections … . Moreover, a private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme, since the statute offers no other practical means of enforcement such that a private right of action is necessary to trigger the protections intended to be afforded to health care providers … . Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06242, Second Dept 8-23-17

CONTRACT LAW (HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (CONTRACT LAW, HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))

,

APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appointment of an outside attorney [Mr. Zauderer] to serve as the sole member of a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to determine the merits of claims asserted in this LLC derivative suit was not allowed by the operating agreements:

Neither operating agreement provides for the delegation of decision-making authority to other than a member, or to an outsider like Mr. Zauderer to serve as SLC. The agreements are explicit that while day-to-day management is vested in the manager, “major decisions” need the consent of the other members. We reject the argument that the appointment of the SLC (as opposed to the ultimate decision as to whether to proceed with the derivative litigation) was not a “Major Decision” within the meaning of the agreements. The SLC was specifically granted the authority to “determine the positions and actions that the Companies should take with respect to the claims, considering, among other things, whether the claims have merit, whether they are likely to prevail, and whether it is in the Companies’ best interests to pursue them.”

That is not to say that the appointment of an SLC would in all cases be improper in the LLC context. Indeed, the members may so provide in the operating agreement, and such provision will be enforced in accordance with those same principles concerning the parties’ freedom to contract … . LNYC Loft, LLC v Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 8-15-17

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE ACTIONS,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))OPERATING AGREEMENTS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the written consulting (retainer) agreement was complete and evidence of an oral agreement to form a joint venture should not have been considered. Defendant’s motion to dismiss founded on documentary evidence (the written retainer agreement), therefore, should have been granted. Plaintiff had alleged defendant breached the oral agreement:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim”… . A written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced to give effect to the meaning of its terms and the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the court should determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the contract without looking to extrinsic evidence to create ambiguities … . The parol evidence rule generally operates to preclude evidence of a prior or contemporaneous communication during negotiations of an agreement that contradicts, varies, or explains a written agreement which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and expresses the parties’ entire agreement and intentions … . Where, as here, there is no merger clause, the court must examine the surrounding circumstances and the writing itself to determine whether the agreement constitutes a complete, integrated instrument … .

Here, both a reading of the written retainer agreement and a consideration of the surrounding circumstances lead to the conclusion that the written retainer agreement is a complete written instrument, and, thus, evidence of what may have been agreed orally between the parties prior to the execution of this integrated written instrument cannot be received to vary the terms of the writing … . Hoeg Corp. v Peebles Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06066, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISSAL FOUNDED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,  IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined that defendant’-trustee’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted. Although the defendant indenture trustee did not owe the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty with regard to the sale of securities, the trustee still owed plaintiffs a duty of care as described in the trust agreement, including a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Here the plaintiffs alleged the trustee sold the securities below market price and then sold them for a profit, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the equity in the securities:

​

This appeal concerns the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the termination of certain REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) trusts. The assets held by the trusts were mortgage loans. The trusts originally sold securities to outside investors, representing two classes of holders, i.e., regular security holders and residual security holders. Plaintiffs … are holders of the residual security interests in those trusts. While the holders of regular securities were entitled to receive regular payments on distribution dates, the residual security holders had no such right. Instead, they were entitled to receive the proceeds of the disposition of any asset remaining in the trust REMICs upon their termination, but only after each class of regular security holder had been paid. Plaintiffs’ interest is referred to as the trust “equity.” The residual holder interest was the riskiest tranche of ownership and any right to payment was subordinate to payment in full of amounts due to the regular interest holders.

… The trustee argues that under the trust documents, it had the right to purchase trust assets at below market, even though it could resell them within days of acquiring them, allowing the trustee to realize millions of dollars in personal profit. The trustee is alleged to have kept for itself the profit it realized on the forward sale, which was in excess of $3,000,000.

… Even if the sale of assets to the trustee had been conclusively established by documentary evidence, there is still a valid claim that the trustee’s actions create a conflict of interest prohibited under the operative trust agreements and in violation of the trustee’s contractual obligations. The trust documents do not give the trustee the express right to purchase the trust assets for its own financial benefit at less than market value and to thereby diminish, let alone extinguish, plaintiffs’ interest as residual security holders. NMC Residual Ownership L.L.C. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05923, First Dept 8-1-17

​

​

Similar issues and result in Cece & Co. Ltd. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05924, First Dept 8-1-17 (Gische, J)

 

SECURITIES (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department noted that an agreement to pay commissions is an agreement that can be performed in one year, so an oral agreement to pay commissions is not subject to the statute of frauds:

“An agreement to pay an at-will employee commissions earned during the period of his or her employment is capable of performance within one year and does not violate the [s]tatute of [f]rauds” … . Here, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is not about renewal commissions that accrued after his resignation from WorldClaim … . Rather, plaintiff seeks the payment of commissions that he claims were earned while he was still employed by WorldClaim … . Indeed, the complaint alleged that plaintiff, “[d]uring the period from approximately April 2011 to January 2012, . . . earned $104,525 in commissions from sales, [and] $25,000 in monthly bonuses.” Given that plaintiff was still employed by WorldClaim during this alleged time period, the statute of frauds does not bar plaintiff’s claim for unpaid commissions … . Kieper v The Fusco Group Partners Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05782, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, STATUTE OF FRAUDS,  AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD 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