Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A minor plaintiff commenced a civil action against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and one of its priests alleging sexual molestation by the priest. The Diocese settled the action for $2 million and additional consideration. At issue on appeal was a dispute between the Diocese and one of its insurance carriers (National Union) regarding the Diocese's demand for reimbursement for the settlement. The Diocese sought a declaratory judgment that National Union was required to indemnify the Diocese for the settlement and certain defense costs and fees. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the Diocese. At issue on appeal was whether the incidents of sexual abuse constituted a single occurrence or multiple occurrences that spanned several years and several policy periods. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the alleged acts of sexual abuse constituted multiple occurrences and that the settlement amount should be allocated on a pro rata basis over the seven policy periods. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the incidents of sexual abuse constituted multiple occurrences and that any potential liability should be apportioned among the several insurance policies, pro rata. View "Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

This case arose from efforts of Verizon New England to collect a judgment awarded in 2009 by the U.S. district court against Global NAPs (GNAPs). Verizon served a restraining notice on GNAPs and companies with which it did business, one of which was Transcom Enhanced Services. Verizon subsequently commenced this special proceeding seeking a turnover of property and debts of the judgment debtor held by Transcom. Supreme Court denied turnover and dismissed the petition with prejudice, concluding that Transcom did not owe any debt to GNAPs and it did not hold property in which GNAPs had any interest. At issue on appeal was whether the at-will, prepayment service agreement between the parties, which lacked any obligation to continue services or a commitment to engage in future dealings, constituted a property interest or debt subject to a N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5222(b) restraining notice. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, based on the nature of the agreement, the restraining notice was unenforceable. View "Verizon New England, Inc. v Transcom Enhanced Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant formed a partnership by oral agreement. Defendant later withdrew from the venture after Plaintiff refused his demand for majority ownership of the partnership. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, claiming that Defendant could not unilaterally terminate his obligations under the agreement. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the complaint failed to allege that the partnership agreement provided for a definite term or a defined objective, and therefore, dissolution was permissible under N.Y. P'ship Law 62(1)(b). The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the breach of contract cause of action, reasoning that the complaint adequately described a definite term and alleged a particular undertaking. The Court of Appeals reversed with directions that the breach of contract cause of action of the complaint be dismissed, holding (1) the complaint did not satisfy the "definite term" element of section 62(1)(b) because it did not set forth a specific or a reasonably certain termination date; and (2) the alleged scheme of anticipated partnership events detailed in the complaint were too amorphous to meet the statutory "particular undertaking" standard for precluding unilateral dissolution of a partnership. View "Gelman v. Buehler" on Justia Law

The Whites signed a contract to buy the Farrells' property and tendered a $25,000 deposit. The Whites later terminated the contract due to a faulty "drainage situation." The Whites subsequently sued the Farrells to recover their down payment, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The Farrells counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court concluded (1) the Whites had breached the contract and were not entitled to a return of their down payment; and (2) the measure of the Farrells' actual damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the breach, and thus, the Farrells did not suffer damages on account of the Whites' breach. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the measure of damages for the Whites' breach was the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach; and (2) there was conflicting evidence as to the property's fair market value when the Whites default, which precluded summary judgment. Remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "White v. Farrell" on Justia Law

These three cases stemmed from a residency policy that called for employees of the City of Niagara Falls School District hired or promoted after the policy's effective date to reside in the City and maintain residency there during their employment. Here the District's Administrator for Human Resources notified three employees that they were suspected of violating the residency policy. The Board then terminated the employees' employment for failure to comply with the policy. On appeal, the Appellate Court (1) found that the District did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the employee had changed her domicile in the first case; (2) found the Board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious in the second case; and (3) determined that the third employee's termination was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals reversed in the first case, affirmed in the second case, and reversed and remanded in the third case, holding (1) the residency policy and its implementing regulations were clear and unambiguous; (2) the District's notice-and-hearing procedures easily complied with due process; and (3) in the majority of these cases, the Board's determinations were not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. View "Beck-Nichols v. Bianco" on Justia Law

In one agreement, Cammeby's Equity Holdings LLC (Cam Equity) received an option to acquire 99.99 percent of the ownership units of SVCare at the strike price of $100 million. In a second agreement, Cammeby's Funding III LLC (Cam III) agreed to lend $100 million to SVCare. Cam III and Cam Equity were controlled by the same person. In anticipation that Cam Equity would exercise the option, SVCare commenced an action alleging that the option was unenforceable because the consideration underlying its agreement to offer the option was contingent on Cam III loaning it $100 million, which SVCare claimed was never paid. Cam Equity brought a separate lawsuit seeking specific performance of the option agreement. Supreme Court (1) found in in favor of Cam Equity in the first action, concluding that the option and loan were entirely separate agreements and that SVCare could not offer extrinsic evidence regarding the $100 million loan obligation that was not mentioned in the option agreement; and (2) in the second action, determined that Cam III had, in fact, fully funded the $100 million loan to SVCare pursuant to the loan agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lower court did not err in its judgment. View "Schron v. Troutman Saunders LLP" on Justia Law

Cammeby's Funding LLC (Cam Funding) and Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings LLC (Fundamental) entered into an option agreement entitling Cam Funding to acquire one-third of Fundamental's membership units for a strike price of $1,000. Cam Funding subsequently notified Fundamental that it was exercising the option and sent Fundamental a check for $1,000. Fundamental respondent that, pursuant to its operating agreement, no membership units in Fundamental would be issued until Cam Funding provided a required capital contribution of 33.33 percent. Fundamental then sought a declaration that Cam Funding was bound by the membership requirements in the operating agreement. Cam Funding filed a counterclaimed for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled that the option agreement unambiguously granted Cam Funding the right to acquire a one-third interest in Fundamental upon payment of $1,000 and that enforcement of the operating agreement would interfere with Cam Funding's rights under the terms of the option agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mere reference in the option agreement to the operating agreement was not enough to evidence clear intent for the two separate contracts to be read as one. View "Fund. Long Term Care Holdings, LLC v. Cammeby's Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Inepar S.A. Industria e Construc es (IIC) was a Brazilian power company that held a sixty percent stake in Defendant Inepar Investments, S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of Uruguay. Plaintiff IRB-Brasi Resseguros S.A. (IRB), a fifty percent state-owned corporation organized under the laws of Brazil, purchased $14 million of Inepar's global notes. After the interest payments ceased, and IRB never received the payment of the principal, Plaintiff sued IIC and Inepar seeking payment of the global note principal and the unpaid accrued interest. Inepar defaulted in this action. IIC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the guarantee IIC provided to guarantee the punctual payment of principal and interest under the terms of the global notes was void under Brazilian law and that New York's choice-of-law principals should apply, resulting in the application of Brazilian substantive law. Supreme Court ruled the express choice of New York law in the parties' contract should be given mandatory effect and ruled in favor of IIC. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a conflict-of-laws analysis need not be undertaken when there is an express choice of New York law in the parties' agreement. View "IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Invs., S.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs and Defendant formed and managed a limited liability company for the purpose of entering into a long-term lease on a building in Manhattan. Later, Defendant took sole possession of the property and bought Plaintiffs' membership interests in the LLC. Defendant subsequently assigned the lease to a subsidiary of a development company. Believing that Defendant surreptitiously negotiated the sale with the development company before he bought their interests in the LLC, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Defendant, claiming that, by failing to disclose the negotiations with the development company, Defendant breached his fiduciary duty to them. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's order, allowing four of Plaintiffs' claims to proceed - breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraud and misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals reversed ad dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety, relying on its recent decision in Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. View "Pappas v. Tzolis" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the parties' contract language specifying that Seller's "sole remedy" was liquidated damages and Seller had "no further rights" against the defaulting purchaser (Buyer), trumped language in N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5001(a) directing that statutory interest be awarded in a contract dispute. Buyer commenced this action to recover its down payment. Supreme Court rendered a judgment awarding Buyer the down payment plus statutory interest. The Appellate Division modified to vacate the award of statutory interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the contract language controlled in this instance; and (2) therefore, Buyer was not entitled to statutory pre-judgment interest. View "J. D'Addario & Co. v. Embassy Indus., Inc." on Justia Law