Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A property owner sought to develop a parcel of land in a town, which required rezoning and environmental review. In 2017, while preparing its zoning petition, the owner and the town entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that purported to bind the town and its successors to continue reviewing the zoning petition until a final determination was reached, based on empirical data. The owner submitted its petition and participated in the environmental review process, investing significant resources. After local elections in 2019, a new town supervisor and board, who opposed the project, voted to terminate review of the zoning petition and the related environmental process.The property owner filed suit against the town, its board, and the supervisor, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the town’s termination of the review process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the MOU was unenforceable under the term limits doctrine and contract zoning doctrine. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissed the complaint, holding the MOU invalid. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that decision.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case after granting leave to appeal. The Court held that the MOU was invalid and unenforceable under the term limits doctrine because it impermissibly bound successor town boards in the exercise of their legislative discretion over zoning matters. The Court found that such an agreement was not specifically authorized by statute or charter, and did not fall within an exception for proprietary acts. As a result, the property owner’s contractual claims failed as a matter of law. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill" on Justia Law

A carpenter employed by a subcontractor was injured after falling from a ladder owned by another subcontractor, DAL Electrical Corporation, while working on a renovation project at an office building. The injured worker was using his own employer’s equipment in the morning but, after lunch, returned to the worksite without his equipment and used an unattended DAL ladder, which was defective and marked with blue tape. He was injured when the ladder wobbled and he fell, impaling himself on a tool in his belt. The worker brought claims under New York Labor Law and for common-law negligence against the project’s general contractor, premises owner, and DAL, asserting the defective ladder caused his injuries. The general contractor and owner sought indemnification from DAL under their subcontract.The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the worker’s motion for partial summary judgment on one Labor Law claim and denied DAL’s motion to dismiss other claims and cross-claims by the general contractor and owner. The court also granted the general contractor and owner summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order by denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and granting summary judgment for DAL on all claims and cross-claims against it. The general contractor and owner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that none of the indemnification provisions in the subcontract required DAL to indemnify the general contractor or owner for the worker’s injuries because the injuries did not arise from DAL’s performance of its contractually defined work. The Court also found that DAL did not owe a duty of care in tort to the injured worker, as the facts did not fit within any recognized exception to the general rule against extending contractual duties to non-contracting third parties. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. View "Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc." on Justia Law

A commercial landlord and tenant entered into a lease for office space, which was later amended to include a limited personal guaranty by an officer of the tenant. The guaranty, often referred to as a "good guy" guaranty, stated that the guarantor would be liable for the tenant’s monetary obligations under the lease up to the date the tenant and its affiliates had completely vacated and surrendered the premises, provided the landlord was given at least thirty days’ notice. The tenant stopped paying rent and utilities in 2020, notified the landlord of its intent to vacate, and surrendered the premises at the end of November 2020.The landlord sued both the tenant and the guarantor in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid rent and expenses from before and after the surrender, as well as attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the landlord for pre-vacatur damages but denied summary judgment for post-vacatur damages pending further discovery. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment for post-vacatur damages as well, holding both the tenant and guarantor jointly and severally liable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, reasoning that the guaranty required the landlord’s written acceptance of the surrender for the guarantor’s liability to end.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court of Appeals held that, under the terms of the guaranty, the guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated and surrendered the premises, and that liability was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. The court found that the language of the guaranty was clear and did not require the landlord’s written acceptance, and that interpreting it otherwise would render key provisions superfluous. The court denied the landlord’s motions for summary judgment on post-vacatur damages. View "1995 CAM LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two long-time friends and business associates, where the plaintiff invested $3 million in Digipac LLC, controlled by the defendant, based on an oral agreement. The agreement promised the plaintiff an exit opportunity from the investment either if Remark Holdings, Inc.'s share price hit $50 or after five years based on the value of Digipac's Remark holdings. The plaintiff made the investment in two installments in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the defendant unilaterally amended the LLC agreement, which included a merger clause stating that it superseded all prior agreements.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, seeking $11.6 million. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the oral agreement was superseded by the amended LLC agreement. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the oral agreement unenforceable and the promissory estoppel claim unreasonable. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was bound by the amended LLC agreement and its merger clause, which nullified the oral agreement. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, noting that it was duplicative of the breach of contract claim.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the amended LLC agreement, governed by Delaware law, unambiguously nullified the prior oral agreement through its merger clause. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the defendant acted in a personal capacity and that the agreements involved different subject matters. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, as the amended LLC agreement governed the promise at issue. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing LLC agreements and protecting contractual rights in closely held LLCs. View "Behler v Kai-Shing Tao" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Hobish Irrevocable Trust purchased a universal life insurance policy from AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company to insure Toby Hobish. The policy provided a $2 million death benefit and allowed flexible premium payments into a Policy Account, from which monthly cost of insurance (COI) charges were deducted. In 2015, AXA announced an increase in COI charges for certain policies, including the Trust's, leading to a significant rise in the monthly COI charge. The Trust surrendered the policy in 2016, receiving the remaining account balance minus a surrender fee.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and violation of General Business Law § 349. They claimed the COI rate increase was not equitable to all policyholders of a given class and that AXA had misled elderly consumers about the likelihood of such increases. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on liability, finding the term "a given class" ambiguous and requiring further examination of extrinsic evidence. The court also dismissed several of plaintiffs' damages theories, including claims for the full value of the death benefit and restitutionary damages.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims, including compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, and limited punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 to three times the actual damages.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims and confirmed that punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 are limited to the statutory treble damages. View "Hobish v AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, the decedent's son and Administrator of her estate, filed a negligence, medical malpractice, and wrongful death lawsuit in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Dewitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and other defendants. The decedent was a resident at Dewitt in February and March 2019. Dewitt moved to transfer the venue to Nassau County based on a forum selection clause in two electronically signed admission agreements. Dewitt supported its motion with the agreements and an affidavit from its director of admissions, Francesca Trimarchi. The plaintiff contested the authenticity of the agreements, claiming the signatures were forged and provided an exemplar of the decedent's handwritten signature for comparison.The Supreme Court granted Dewitt's motion, finding that Dewitt met its initial burden to show the forum selection clause was applicable and enforceable, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the alleged forgery. The case was ordered to be transferred to Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dewitt failed to adequately authenticate the admission agreements as Trimarchi did not witness the signing, and thus the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The dissent argued that the burden should be on the plaintiff to prove the clause should not be enforced.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Supreme Court's order. The court held that Dewitt met its burden of establishing the authenticity of the agreements through circumstantial evidence, including Trimarchi's affidavit and the agreements themselves. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the authenticity of the signatures. The court also clarified that CPLR 4539(b) was inapplicable as the documents were originally created in electronic form. The certified question was answered in the negative. View "Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between MAK Technology Holdings Inc. (plaintiff) and Anyvision Interactive Technologies Ltd. (defendant). The defendant, an Israeli company selling facial-recognition software, engaged the plaintiff in 2017 to arrange introductions with potential customers in exchange for referral payments based on revenues generated from any resulting product-license agreements. The parties formalized their agreement in a written Referral Agreement with a defined "Effective Date" of November 23, 2017, and a term of three years. The agreement was amended twice in 2018 to include a compensation arrangement for equity investments in the defendant, separate from their arrangement with respect to product licenses.The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit to recover compensation allegedly owed under the amended Referral Agreement, claiming that a nonparty made an investment in the defendant in July 2021 for which the plaintiff is owed a $1.25 million fee under the Second Amendment. The defendant moved to dismiss this claim on the ground that the transaction occurred eight months after the Term of the Referral Agreement expired in November 2020. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed, both concluding that the error-infected language in section 2 of the Second Amendment creates an ambiguity with respect to the length of the Term.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a $1.25 million fee for a transaction consummated eight months after the "Term" of the parties' agreement expired. The court found that minor syntactic and spelling errors in the preamble of an amendment to the contract cannot reasonably be read as modifying the length of the Term. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the amendment is a separate agreement with a distinct term. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Appellate Division, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract to the extent based on the July 2021 transaction, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd." on Justia Law

A real estate developer, Audthan LLC, and property owner, Nick & Duke, LLC (N & D), entered into a 40-year lease agreement in 2013 to replace a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel with a mixed-use residential and commercial building. The agreement required approval from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) due to a previous harassment finding against the property. The lease required Audthan to obtain a "cure" agreement from HPD and develop low-income housing on the site. However, disagreements arose over the terms of the cure agreement and the parties disputed who was at fault for the termination of the ground lease.The Supreme Court dismissed parts of Audthan's complaint, including a claim for anticipatory repudiation based on N & D's refusal to sign any cure agreement, and rejected N & D's motion to dismiss the remaining portions of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that Audthan could not seek separate redress for anticipatory repudiation based on the same conduct that allegedly breached the contract in 2015.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' dismissal of Audthan's claim for anticipatory repudiation. The court held that a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation could both be stated based on the facts at the pleading stage. The court found that N & D's refusal to sign the 2015 cure agreement could be seen as falling short of its contractual requirements without amounting to a total breach. However, N & D's 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement could be seen as a clear and unequivocal statement that N & D would never perform its obligations, constituting a repudiation of the contract. The court modified the Appellate Division's order by denying N & D's motion to dismiss in part, affirmed the order as modified, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Consolidated Restaurant Operations (CRO), a company that owns and operates dozens of restaurants, and Westport Insurance Corporation (Westport). CRO had an "all-risk" commercial property insurance policy with Westport, which covered "all risks of direct physical loss or damage to insured property." When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, causing CRO to suspend or substantially curtail its operations due to the presence of the virus in its restaurants and government restrictions on nonessential businesses, CRO sought coverage for the ensuing loss of revenue. Westport denied coverage, stating that the coronavirus did not cause "direct physical loss or damage" to CRO's properties. CRO filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of Westport's obligations under the policy and damages for breach of contract.The Supreme Court of New York dismissed the complaint, declaring that the policy did not cover CRO's alleged losses. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, interpreting "direct physical loss or damage" to require a tangible alteration of the property, which CRO had not demonstrated.The case was then brought to the New York Court of Appeals. The court held that "direct physical loss or damage" requires a material alteration or a complete and persistent dispossession of insured property. The presence of the virus in the restaurants and the resulting cessation of in-person dining services did not meet this requirement. The court thus affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint. View "Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative a certified question asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals in this case centering around a life insurance policy providing that "assignment will be effective upon Notice" in writing to the insurer.Specifically, the Court of Appeals answered that, when a life insurance policy provides that "assignment will be effective upon Notice" in writing to the insurer, the insured's failure to provide to the insurer written notice of the policy's assignment voids the assignment so that the purported assignee does not have contractual standing to bring a claim under the policy. Accordingly, the Court held that the insured in this case lacked authority under the contract at issue to sue the insurer. View "Brettler v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America" on Justia Law