Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought legal malpractice claims against Jeffrey Daniels, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company’s insured. American Guarantee wrongly refused to defend the claims. A default judgment was entered against Daniels, who assigned his rights against American Guarantee to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then brought the present action seeking to enforce American Guarantee’s duty to indemnify Daniels for the judgment. Summary judgment was awarded in favor of Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that American Guarantee’s breach of its duty to defend barred it from relying on policy exclusions as a defense to the present lawsuit. The Court later granted reargument, vacated its prior decision, and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding (1) under controlling precedent, American Guarantee was not barred from relying on policy exclusions as a defense; and (2) the applicability of the exclusions American Guarantee relied on presented an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.View "K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Filippo Gallina and his wife (Plaintiffs) commenced a personal injury action against Preferred Trucking Services Corp. Preferred Trucking was insured by County-Wide Insurance Company under a policy that required insureds to cooperate with Country-Wide in its investigation of a claim or defense against a lawsuit. The next year, Country-Wide disclaimed its obligation to defend and indemnify Preferred Trucking based upon Preferred Trucking’s refusal to cooperate in the defense. Supreme Court subsequently awarded judgment to Plaintiffs. Thereafter, Country-Wide filed this action against Preferred Trucking and Plaintiffs seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify Preferred Trucking in the underlying action. Supreme Court concluded that Country-Wide was obligated to defend and indemnify Preferred Trucking. At issue on appeal was whether Country-Wide’s disclaimer was timely as a matter of law. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that Country-Wide’s disclaimer was untimely because it came four months after Country-Wide learned of the ground for the disclaimer. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Country-Wide was not obligated to defend and indemnify Preferred Trucking, as Country-Wide established as a matter of law that its delay was reasonable. View "Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Preferred Trucking Servs. Corp. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff-hospital engaged Defendant to undertake demolition in a basement room at the hospital. Defendant hired brothers Luis and Gerardo Lema, undocumented aliens not legally employable in the United States. The Lemas were injured while performing the work and sued the hospital for violations of the state’s Labor Law. Supreme Court granted the Lemas summary judgment on liability. The hospital, meanwhile, brought this action for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification against Defendant to recover damages incurred in the Labor Law litigation with the Lemas. Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action, reasoning that N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law 11 barred the hospital’s action. In so holding, the court determined that non-compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) did not deprive Defendant of the protection of section 11. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to the safe harbor in section 11 because the Lemas did not suffer grave injuries, there was no preexisting agreement for contractual contribution or indemnification, and the hospital did not contend that IRCA preempts section 11.View "N.Y. Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Microtech Contracting Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff had a $1 million insurance policy from Defendant on an office building. On February 23, 2007, the building was severely damaged in a fire. Defendant paid Plaintiff the actual cash value of the destroyed building in the amount of $757,812 but withheld the cost of replacing the destroyed property until Plaintiff could replace the property. The replacement building was completed in October 2010. Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant seeking payment of the unpaid portion of the policy limits. The U.S. district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the policy barred any suits commenced more than two years after the date of the damage and that the two-year limitation period was reasonable. The Court of Appeals answered a question from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that such a contractual limitation period, applied to this case in which the property could not reasonably be replaced in two years, was unreasonable and unenforceable.View "Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sold fine art and antiques at public auctions. Plaintiff permitted absentee bidding in addition to traditional in-person bidding. In 2008, Defendant submitted a signed absentee bidder form and submitted a $400,000 bid on a certain item. Defendant successfully outbid a competing bidder, and the chief clerk recorded the winning bid on Plaintiff's clerking sheet. After Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for the item, Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract, seeking damages, including the bid price and the buyer's premium. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. At issue in this case was whether the clerking sheet and related bidding documents satisfied the Statute of Frauds. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on liability. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff complied with the statutory requirement of a writing in support of its breach of contract claim, thus establishing an enforceable agreement.View "William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Rabizadeh" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of a school district (District), were members of a collective bargaining unit. One plaintiff retired while the 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was in effect, and the other plaintiffs retired under the 2003-2007 CBA. In 2009, the District informed Plaintiffs that their co-pays would be governed under the terms of the 2007-2012 CBA, resulting in an increase from their previous co-pay charges. Plaintiffs filed this action for breach of contract, alleging that by increasing their co-pays, the District violated the terms of the CBAs in effect when Plaintiffs retired. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the contract did not specify that an equivalent level of coverage would continue during retirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division as modified, holding (1) the plain meaning of the contract unambiguously established that Plaintiffs had a vested right to the "same coverage" during retirement as they had when they retired; and (2) because an issue of fact remained as to whether the parties intended for the right to the "same coverage" to preclude any modifications to prescription co-pays, it was necessary to remit the case for a hearing on the issue.View "Kolbe v. Tibbetts" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a financial brokerage agreement with Defendant providing that Plaintiff would serve as financial advisor and investment banker in the proposed sale of certain student loan assets owned by Defendant. After Defendant transferred certain distressed assets to a fund created by the Swiss National Bank as part of a 2008 bailout, Plaintiff demanded a commission pursuant to the agreement. Defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the financial crises and the bailout constituted an unforeseeable event that undermined the purpose of the agreement, which was “the introduction of [Defendant] by [Plaintiff] to a third party buyer.” The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs’ causes of action were conclusively contradicted by the language of the parties’ contract, mandating dismissal of the complaint. View "Morpheus Capital Advisors, LLC v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued several defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery for alleged wrongdoing related to notes purchased by Plaintiff and issued by one of the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a no-action clause contained in the indenture agreement governing Plaintiff’s notes. The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Chancery for consideration of the issues under New York law. On remand, the Court of Chancery concluded that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were not barred under the no-action clause and that dismissal and partial dismissal were warranted with respect to the remaining claims because only those claims arose under the indenture. In response to certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded (1) a trust indenture’s no-action clause that specifically precludes enforcement of contractual claims arising under the indenture, but omits reference to “the Securities,” does not bar a securityholder’s independent common law or statutory claims; and (2) the Court of Chancery correctly found that the no-action clause in this case, which referred only to “this Indenture,” precluded enforcement only of contractual claims arising under the Indenture. View "Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin" on Justia Law

IDT Corp. and Tyco International Ltd. litigated and negotiated for fifteen years over the development and use of a telecommunications system. In 2004, IDT claimed that Tyco breached its obligation under a 2000 settlement agreement to negotiate additional agreements in good faith. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that IDT’s claim was unsupported by the record. After the Court’s decision, more negotiations took place. In 2010, IDT again sued Tyco for breach of contract and breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith. The Court of Appeals rejected IDT’s claim, holding that the parties’ obligation to negotiate in good faith came to an end without a breach by either party because the parties had reached a “good faith impasse.” View "IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L." on Justia Law

On October 18, 2000, Tenant leased Landlord's billboard for fifteen years, commencing on December 1, 2000 and ending September 30, 2015. The lease obligated Tenant to pay the full annual basic rent for 2007 to Landlord on January 1, 2007. Tenant later terminated the lease, effective January 8, 2007, and gave Landlord a check representing rent for the period of January 1, 2007 through January 8, 2007. Landlord filed suit against Tenant seeking the balance of the basic rent for 2007. Tenant moved for summary judgment, suggesting that Landlord agreed to pro-rate rent for 2007 during an oral communication. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Tenant. The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment for Landlord. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Tenant was obligated to pay the full annual basic rent for the calendar year 2007, the parties did not agree in the lease to apportion rent post-termination except in specified circumstances not relevant here, and Tenant's claim that the parties orally agreed to such apportionment was barred by the lease's "no oral modification" clause. View "Eujoy Realty Corp. v. Van Wagner Commc'ns, LLC" on Justia Law