Reads Co., LLC v. Katz
| Decision Date | 27 April 2010 |
| Citation | 72 A.D.3d 1054,900 N.Y.S.2d 131 |
| Parties | READS CO., LLC, appellant, v. Robin KATZ, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kaplan Landau LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eugene Neal Kaplan and Mary Cecilia Sweeney of counsel), for appellant.
Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Robert P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RUTH C. BALKIN, and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for breach of a separation agreement and a so-ordered stipulation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered May 1, 2009, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant (hereinafter the wife) married Adam Katz(hereinafter the husband), the only member of Reads Co., LLC, the plaintiff herein, on February 19,1989. They resided in a house wholly owned by the plaintiff. In August 2004, the husband commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief. On October 12, 2005, the parties entered into a separation agreement pursuant to which, inter alia, the wife would have exclusive occupancy of the marital residence for a period of 18 months or until the husband was able to provide a replacement residence for her, whichever occurred first.
In September 2006 the husband purchased a parcel of property which he offered to the wife as a replacement residence. At a preliminary conference held on September 28, 2006, the parties executed a so-ordered stipulation whereby the wife agreed to vacate the marital residence on or before November 10, 2006, provided that there were no problems with the replacement residence. However, the wife did not vacate the marital residence until December 19, 2006.
In May 2007 the husband assigned his rights in the stipulation to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of the separation agreement and the stipulation. The plaintiff alleged that it incurred damages because the wife did not vacate the marital residence in a timely manner, which prevented it from selling the property. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint and granted that branch of the wife's cross motion which was which for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the wife violated the terms of the separation agreement and the stipulation. The language in the stipulation did not constitute a clear and unequivocal mandate directing the wife to vacate the marital residence on or before November 10, 2006. The stipulation predicated her obligation to vacate the residence upon the husband's resolution of problems with the replacement residence, and he failed to demonstrate that he discharged this obligation. Moreover, the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the wife unreasonably interfered with the ability of the husband's real estate broker to show the marital residence to prospective buyers. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.
In support of her cross motion, the wife established, prima facie, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages alleged in the complaint, namely, damages for use and occupancy,lost sales opportunities, and diminution of value, or punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The legal owner of real property is not entitled to an award for use and occupancy unless there also exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties ( see Fulgenzi v. Rink, 253 A.D.2d 846, 848, 678 N.Y.S.2d 360; Mendoza v. Rodriguez, 127 A.D.2d 635, 636, 511 N.Y.S.2d 660; Jacobs v. Andolina, 123 A.D.2d 835, 836, 507 N.Y.S.2d 450; Barbarita v. Shilling, 111 A.D.2d 200, 201, 489 N.Y.S.2d 86; Castle v. Armstead, 168 App.Div. 466, 469, 153 N.Y.S. 266, affd. 219 N.Y. 615, 114 N.E. 1062). The wife demonstrated that no such relationship existed here between her and the plaintiff and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Moreover, in an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the nonbreaching party may recover "general," consequential contract damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach ( Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312, 319, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1, 537 N.E.2d 176; see Atkins Nutritionals v. Ernst & Young, 301 A.D.2d 547, 549, 754 N.Y.S.2d 320). In order to recover "special" or extraordinary contract damages that do not flow directly from the breach, however, a plaintiff is required to plead that the damages were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endemann v. Liberty Ins. Corp.
...v. Continental Ins. Co. , 87 N.Y.2d 308, 319-20, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 (N.Y. 1995) ; Reads Co., LLC v. Katz , 72 A.D.3d 1054, 1056–1057, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) ; Ticheli v. Travelers Ins. Co. , No. 1:14-CV-00172, 2014 WL 12587066, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2014). A......
-
BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
...v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 412 F.3d 82, 93 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Reads Co. v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131, 134 (2010) (“Punitive damages are only recoverable ... [for] breach of contract ... where the conduct was aimed at the public genera......
-
Severstal Wheeling, Inc. v. WPN Corp.
...damages were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made.” Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054, 1056, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010); accord Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312, 319, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1, 537 N.E.2d 176 (1989) (damages m......
-
Marques v. Elite Flooring, Inc.
...upon a private breach, and does not seek to vindicate a public right or deter morally culpable conduct. See, Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054 (2nd Dept. 2010). "Punitive damages are only recoverable where [there is] fraud evincing a high degree of moral turpitude, and demonstrating su......
-
Chapter 15 THIRD PARTIES AND THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
...992 (3d Dep't), lv. denied, 70 N.Y.2d 609, 522 N.Y.S.2d 109 (1987)).[2962] 236 A.D.2d 596, 654 N.Y.S.2d 36 (2d Dep't 1997).[2963] 72 A.D.3d 1054, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010).[2964] 82 A.D.3d 469, 918 N.Y.S.2d 417 (1st Dep't 2011).[2965] N. Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.,......
-
Chapter 17 LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSES
...citing Truck Rent-A-Center).[3018] Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354, 386 N.Y.S.2d 831 (1976); Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010); Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 59.2.[3019] AXA Mediterranean Holding, S.P. v. ING Ins. Int'l, B.V., 106 A.D.3d 4......
-
Chapter 28 RESCISSION
...146 A.D.3d 552, 555, 46 N.Y.S.3d 18 (1st Dep't 2017).[4635] Don Buchwald & Assoc., 281 A.D.2d at 330.[4636] Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054, 1056–57, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010).[4637] Fiesel v. Nanuet Properties Corp., 125 A.D.2d 292, 508 N.Y.S.2d 576 (2d Dep't 1986).[4638] N.Y......
-
Chapter 16 ACCELERATION CLAUSES, CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,LOST PROFITS, AND CONTRACTUAL INTEREST RATES
...to Procedure, Jurisdiction, Evidence and Other Rights," in Chapter 1, Agreements in General: Principles of Contract Doctrine.[2984] 72 A.D.3d 1054, 900 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010).[2985] Kenford Co. v. Cnty. of Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1989); Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysv......