A recent ruling in the Suffolk County Commercial Division highlights the risk a party faces when agreeing to, and later attempting to, enforce an oral modification to a written contract. In Castle Restoration LLC v. Castle...more
In Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, Suffolk County Commercial Division Justice Elizabeth H. Emerson refused to enforce an oral agreement that allegedly modified a prior written agreement between...more
The arrival of the new year is a bittersweet time for the Commercial Division as it bids farewell to two of its most senior judges: Justice Charles E. Ramos and Justice Eileen Bransten. Notably, both will be staying on to...more
A recent ruling sets a precedent that no longer allows a contractual clause that purports to preclude variation other than in writing to be regarded as uniformly enforceable. In a recent case concerning the breach of an...more
Anti-oral variation clauses do not prohibit oral variation. The Court of Appeal in Globe Motors Inc v TRW Lucas Variety Electric Steering Ltd (“Globe Motors”) recently provided much overdue clarification on the...more
Lender liability claims generally arise in one of following contexts: (i) claims seeking recovery of damage or "leverage" to accept discounted payoffs; (ii) counterclaims to foreclosure/receivership/guarantor actions; or...more
In response to a deluge of cases involving parties’ attempts to enforce oral modifications of contracts, the New York Appellate Division, First Department recently reiterated that contractual provisions requiring amendments...more