Pleading quasi contract claims in the alternative.

The causes of action for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment are properly pleaded in the alternative to the breach of contract cause of action, as the matter presents a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a valid contract.

Tahari v. Narkis, NY Slip Op 02772 (1st Dep't May 23, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur of default based on intrinsic fraud.

The defendants' contentions that the plaintiff fraudulently robosigned allonges to the note and failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 amount to allegations of intrinsic fraud. A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) based on intrinsic fraud must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Since the defendants failed even to allege any reasonable excuse for either one of their defaults, the court denied that branch of their motion to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Anderson, NY Slip Op 02635 (2d Dep't May 17, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Quasi contract claims.

The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment. The existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter. An unjust enrichment claim is not available where it simply duplicates, or replaces, a conventional contract or tort claim. Here, recovery on an unjust enrichment theory is precluded, since that cause of action arises out of the same subject matter as the breach of contract cause of action, which remains a viable part of this case despite the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability.

Avery v. WJM Dev. Corp., NY Slip Op 02634 (2d Dep't May 17, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Liability for open and obvious hazards.

The court rejected defendant's contention that she cannot be held liable as a matter of law because the pile of snow and ice that caused plaintiff's accident was open and obvious. An open and obvious condition only relieves a property owner of its duty to warn, and not the duty to ensure that the premises is maintained in a reasonably safe condition.

Martinez v. Contreras, NY Slip Op 02742 (1st Dep't May 18, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur of a dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiff is not entitled to vacatur of the order and judgment of dismissal on the ground of excusable default, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1], since they were not entered on her default. Her counsel appeared in court on the return date, participated in the argument and discussion, and submitted papers, and there is nothing in the court's order or judgment to indicate that the motions were granted on plaintiff's default. In any event, plaintiff did not move within the statutorily prescribed one-year time limit and failed to present a valid excuse for her failure to do so.

Matter of Duval v. Centerlight Health Sys., Inc., NY Slip Op 02740 (1st Dep't May 18, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action.  In considering the motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Where the movant relies upon evidence beyond the four corners of the complaint, the motion must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it.

808 Union St., LLC v. J. Lehman Park Slope, LLC, NY Slip Op 02632 (2d Dep't May 17, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property.

A party seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property must establish not only that he was ready, willing, and able to close on the scheduled closing date, but also that the other party was in default.  Here, since there was never a time of the essence closing, nor even a future scheduled closing date, neither element is established. The cause of action is dismissed. 

141 Park Ave. Realties, Inc. v. 141 Park Ave. Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 02631 (2d Dep't May 17, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Breach of contract.

The plaintiff's' claim is dismissed because the complaint fails to allege, in nonconclusory language, the essential terms of the parties' purported contract, including the specific provisions upon which liability is predicated.

Unobagha v. Hilton Garden Inn Times Sq. N., NY Slip Op 02629 (1st Dep't May 16, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be effected by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to such person at his last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his actual place of business. Ordinarily, a process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served. However, when the defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of service containing specific facts to refute the statements in the affidavit, the prima facie showing is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing.

Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Simon, NY Slip Op 02485 (2d Dep't May 10, 2023)

Here is the decision.