Real Estate – New York Appellate Digest

HERE THE PROVISIONS IN THE LETTER AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter agreement did not give plaintiff an exclusive right to sell the property:

Plaintiff’s argument that the parties’ letter agreement gave it an exclusive right to sell is unavailing. To create an exclusive right to sell, a contract “must clearly and expressly provide that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . The agreement here lacks express language excluding a direct conveyance by defendants, nor is that a necessary implication of its terms … . The agreement’s language requiring defendants to “inform” plaintiff if contacted about potential transactions is insufficient to create an exclusive right to sell … . Moreover, plaintiff fails to show that the agreement’s tail provision, entitling plaintiff to a fee for efforts at procuring a transaction during its engagement even if the transaction were completed only after the termination of that engagement, necessarily implied that the parties intended to create an exclusive right to sell. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v ObvioHealth Pte Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 06421, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into the criteria for conferring the exclusive right to sell property.

December 19, 2024

Contract Law, Real Estate, Real Property Law

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE CLOSING DATE SET IN SELLER’S LETTER PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR BUYER TO CLOSE; THEREFORE SELLER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUIRING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the time-of-the-essence closing date set in a letter from seller’s counsel allowed sufficient time for the buyer to close. Therefore the seller was not entitled to summary judgment requiring specific performance based on the buyer’s failure to appear:

“Where there is an indefinite adjournment of the closing date specified in the contract of sale, some affirmative act has to be taken by one party before it can claim the other party is in default; that is, one party has to fix a time by which the other must perform, and it must inform the other that if it does not perform by that date, it will be considered in default” … . “The notice setting a new date for the closing must (1) give clear, distinct, and unequivocal notice that time is of the essence, (2) give the other party a reasonable time in which to act, and (3) inform the other party that if he [or she] does not perform by the designated date, he [or she] will be considered in default” … . “It does not matter that the date is unilaterally set, and what constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case” … . “Included within a court’s determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number of days provided for performance” … . “‘[T]he question of what constitutes a reasonable time is usually a question of fact'” … . Fink v 218 Hamilton, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06026, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the law surrounding setting an enforceable time-of-the-essence date for the closing.

December 4, 2024

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Real Estate

THE LAWSUIT SOUGHT RETURN OF A DOWN PAYMENT UNDER A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT DID NOT AFFECT TITLE, POSSESSION, USE OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY A NOTICE OF PENDENCY IS NOT APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of pendency should have been cancelled because the lawsuit, which sought the return of a down payment under a real estate contract, did not affect title, possession, use or enjoyment of the real property:

Pursuant to CPLR 6501, “[a] notice of pendency may be filed only when ‘the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property'” … . “When the court entertains a motion to cancel a notice of pendency in its inherent power to analyze whether the pleading complies with CPLR 6501, it neither assesses the likelihood of success on the merits nor considers material beyond the pleading itself; ‘the court’s analysis is to be limited to the pleading’s face'” … .

Here, the complaint, on its face, only asserts causes of action to recover monetary damages and does not seek relief that would affect the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of, the property. Mallek v Felmine, 2024 NY Slip Op 02808, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A notice of pendency is appropriate only when the underlying lawsuit involves title, possession, use or enjoyment of real property. A suit for the return of a down payment does not warrant a notice of pendency.

May 22, 2024

Agency, Contract Law, Negligence, Real Estate

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

April 3, 2024

Contract Law, Real Estate

HERE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE WAS DEEMED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELATONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND THE ACTUAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a liquidated damages clause in a contract will constitute an unenforceable penalty if the amount bears no relation to the actual damage. Here, pursuant to the real estate purchase agreement, $35,000 was put in escrow pending the resolution of three open building permits. The purchaser demanded the escrow funds because two of the three building permits remained open. The Second Department found there was no relationship between the $35,000 liquidated damages and the actual damage:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the sum deposited into the escrow account had no relationship to the estimated cost of “closing out” the open building permits in relation to the subject improvements to the property. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that at the time that the escrow agreement was entered into, the estimated actual damages were readily ascertainable. Under these circumstances, the purported liquidated damages clause constituted an unenforceable penalty … . Schmuelian v Bichoupan, 2024 NY Slip Op 01738, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the amount has no relationship with the actual damages. In that circumstance the liquidate damages constitute an unenforceable penalty.

March 27, 2024

Contract Law, Real Estate

A SELLER WHO BREACHES OR SABOTAGES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT CANNOT RELY ON REMEDY LIMITATION CLAUSES TO PRECLUDE A BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that remedy limitation clauses in contracts will not be enforced on behalf of a party who breaches the contract,, acts in bad faith or deliberately sabotages the contract. Here the defendant argued the remedy limitation clause precluded plaintiff’s action for specific performance. But the complaint alleged defendant failed to appear at the closing and otherwise acted prevented the sale bad faith:

“Where . . . a seller sabotages efforts to close the deal, remedy limitation clauses in the contract of sale do not bar a buyer from obtaining specific performance” … . Further, “[a] vendor of real property who breaches the contract of sale in bad faith cannot limit the damages recoverable by the injured purchaser by relying on a contractual limitation” … . Saadia v National Socy. of Hebrew Day Schs., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01571, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: In a real estate deal, a seller who deliberately sabotages the contract cannot rely on remedy limitation clauses to preclude a buyer’s action for specific performance.

March 20, 2024

Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Foreclosure, Judges, Real Estate, Real Property Law

IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Supreme Court in this action against real state brokers who, plaintiff alleged, did not provide plaintiff with proper documentation for a short sale of plaintiff’s property. The short sale was not approved by the lender and plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. The Second Department determined: (1) the judge should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because that issue was not raised by defendants in the motion; (2) the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action should not have been dismissed; (3) the Real Property Law section 441-c action alleging defendants acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” should not have been dismissed; and (4) the constructive-trust cause of action should not have been dismissed:

A court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . * * *

“[I]t is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal” … . * * *

… [T]he causes of action pursuant to Real Property Law § 441-c(1)(a) and 19 NYCRR 175.4, alleging that they acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” in dealing with the plaintiff and the property [should not have been dismissed].. … [T]here exists a private right of action for such offenses … . Perez v Mendicino, 2024 NY Slip Op 01323, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: A judge does not have the authority to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion papers;

Practice Point: Real estate brokers owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Practice Point: There exists a private right of action for a violation of Real Property Law 441-c for a real estate broker’s “untrustworthiness and incompetency.”

March 13, 2024

Contract Law, Real Estate, Real Property Law

THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the condition attached to the sale of a lot by decedent to plaintiff, i.e., that a single-family home be built on the lot, benefited both parties and therefore could not be waived by the plaintiff alone. Plaintiff was unable to procure a building permit but elected to proceed with the sale. The decedent cancelled the sale Plaintiff then brought an action for specific performance which Supreme Court granted:

The contract of sale between the plaintiff and the decedent for the subject property provided in a rider that it was subject to the plaintiff obtaining an as-of-right building permit to build a single-family residence. The plaintiff was subsequently unable to obtain a building permit because a covenant of conditions had never been filed to complete the process of subdividing Norman’s single parcel into the two parcels referred to as 112 Jessup Lane and 114 Jessup Lane. The plaintiff’s and the decedent’s efforts to have the covenant filed so as to complete the subdivision process failed. * * *

Generally, “the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted in an agreement may waive the condition and accept performance as is” … . “However, where the relevant circumstances reveal that the condition has been inserted for the benefit of both parties to the agreement, either party may validly cancel the contract upon failure of the condition, and the condition may be waived only by the mutual assent of both parties” … . …

Inasmuch as the building permit could only be obtained if the subdivision of the property were completed, that condition cannot be interpreted as existing solely for the benefit of the plaintiff where the decedent retained an interest in the other lot to be included in the subdivision … . D&J Realty Partners, LLC v Booth, 2024 NY Slip Op 01169, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: With respect to the sale of real property, if a condition of the sale, here the construction of a single-family residence on the lot to be sold, benefits only one party, the condition can be waived by that party. Here, however, the condition benefitted both parties and could only be waived by the consent of both.

March 6, 2024

Contract Law, Fraud, Real Estate, Tortious Interference with Contract

PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER’S CAUSES OF ACTION (SEEKING THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION) AGAINST THE BUYERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY USING A DIFFERENT BROKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE QUANTUM MERUIT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT MADE OUT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the quantum meruit, tortious interference with contract and fraud causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a real estate broker, had made an offer on sellers’ property on behalf of the Sorkin defendants which was rejected. Subsequently the Sorkin defendants, using a different broker, made another offer on the sellers’ property which was accepted. Plaintiff sued for the brokerage commission. The tortious interference with contract cause of action should have been dismissed because the Sorkins did not procure a breach of contract. The quantum meruit cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff was not a proximate, as opposed to a remote and indirect, link to the consummation of the sale. The fraud cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff could not have detrimentally relied on any alleged misrepresentation by the Sorkins that they were not longer interested in the property:

… [T]he Sorkin defendants demonstrated … that the plaintiff’s sole efforts consisted of some brief contacts with the sellers and the Sorkin defendants, and that after the sellers rejected the offers obtained by the plaintiff from the Sorkin defendants, no further negotiations took place between the plaintiff and the sellers regarding a possible sale to the Sorkin defendants. Subsequently, the sellers negotiated a sale of the subject property to the Sorkin defendants through a different broker, and the sale was consummated. Consequently, the Sorkin defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was “not the direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction of the sellers to the buyers and the consummation of the sale” … . * * *

[Re: fraud:] Even if the Sorkin defendants misrepresented to the plaintiff that they were no longer interested in purchasing the subject property, there could be no “specific detrimental reliance by plaintiff on this misrepresentation, inasmuch as plaintiff could not have compelled the [Sorkin defendants] to speak with plaintiff” … . City RE Group, LLC v 2633 Ocean Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05586, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Although plaintiff real estate broker briefly introduced the buyers to the sellers and submitted an offer which was rejected, plaintiff could not sue for the real estate commission when the buyers submitted another offer through another broker which was accepted. Plaintiff could not make out causes of action for quantum meruit, tortious interference with contract or fraud (based upon the allegation the buyers misrepresented to plaintiff that the were no longer interested in the property).

November 8, 2023

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence, Real Estate

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS NOT A BINDING REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT, BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter of intent was a non-binding agreement-to-agree, not a contract for the sale of real property. The letter of intent constituted “documentary evidence” which warranted dismissal of the breach of contract action:

… [T]he defendant submitted the letter of intent which conclusively established that the parties did not enter into a binding contract, but instead had a mere agreement to agree … . The letter of intent expressly stated that the letter was not contractually binding and expressly anticipated the future preparation and execution of a contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted dismissal of so much of the complaint as was predicated upon allegations of breach of contract pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). Krasnow v Catania, 2023 NY Slip Op 04584, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: This is a rare example of a successful motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence. The letter of intent was, by its terms, not a binding contract. Therefore the breach of contract action, based upon the letter of intent, should have been dismissed.

September 13, 2023