In Gamma USA, Inc. v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed the interplay between pass-through claims, liquidating agreements, liquidated damages provisions, and consequential damages waivers in complex construction disputes. The Court held that a subcontractor could not be exposed, through a pass-through claim, to damages that had been contractually waived or limited under the governing project agreement.

New York courts will not aid in the enforcement of a contract when the subject matter is illegal

As discussed previously in this BLOG, and most recently in “You Can’t Always Waive Bye-Bye to Statutes of Limitations,” statutes of limitation govern the time in which a cause of action must be interposed after accrual. Article 2 of the CPLR addresses statute of limitations issues in New York.

In Greer v. FAM Networks, LLC, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 04039 (1st Dept. June 25, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, held that a complaint alleging breach of a media exploitation agreement sufficiently pleaded the elements of a contract claim by identifying the agreement, claiming performance, alleging nonpayment and failure to account, and asserting resulting damages.

In today’s article, we examine Kingdom Assoc., Inc. v. WBC Servs. Inc., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03070 (1st Dept. May 14, 2026), a case arising from a proposed subcontract for excavation and foundation work on a New York City project.

Contracts are intended to bring certainty and clarity to commercial relationships, yet disputes often arise when written terms leave room for more than one reasonable interpretation. Under New York law, the question of ambiguity can determine whether a case is resolved on the face of the agreement or proceeds into litigation over extrinsic evidence and party intent.

Courts will dismiss breach of contract claims based on nondisclosure agreements where the plaintiff fails to identify specific confidential information allegedly misused. And fraud claims fail as a matter of law when a sophisticated party relies on oral assurances contradicted by written disclosures.

In Kim v. XP Sec., LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a wrongful termination action, reiterating settled principles of contract interpretation: clear, unambiguous agreements between sophisticated, counseled parties are enforced according to their plain meaning, without recourse to extrinsic evidence.

In Alphasense, Inc. v. Financial Tech. Partners LP, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00185 (1st Dept. Jan. 15, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, considered whether Plaintiffs validly terminated an advisory agreement with Defendants under a “Key Man” provision.

In any contract dispute, “it is necessary to consider the language in the contract, for that is what controls the parties’ rights and responsibilities.” For this reason, New York courts “are guided by the standard rules of contractual interpretation, which provide that ‘a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.’”

In today’s article, we examine Harris v. Dream Volunteers, a case in which the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract interpretation: contracts that are clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to their plain terms.

In Macklowe Inv. Props. LLC v. MIP 57th Dev. Acquisition LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05192 (1st Dept. Sept. 30, 2025), the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued pursuant to a letter agreement for a leasing commission after securing a tenant for defendants’ property. The letter agreement required satisfaction of a condition precedent before payment of the commission: execution of a leasing commission agreement. Plaintiff never fulfilled this condition.

In today’s article, we examine BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC, a case involving consequential damages.

In Wilburger v. Ava Labs, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51072(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 3, 2025) (here), plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement related to unpaid compensation for services rendered under an Independent Contractor Agreement.

In Bardy v. Bonnem, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for an ownership option in a drive-thru coffee business. The motion court upheld the agreement based on an email proposal orally accepted by the plaintiff and partial performance. On appeal, the Second Department modified the motion court’s order, finding the email lacked essential terms to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5-701) and that the contract could not be performed within one yea

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do something (e.g., provide goods or services) in exchange for a benefit. When one or more parties to a contract fail to perform a term in their agreement, they are in breach of that agreement.

The elements of a claim for breach of contract are straightforward. The movant must establish: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract, (3) the defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from the defendant’s breach.

The Courts of New York will not aid in the enforcement of a contract when the subject matter is illegal.

A “recurring question” New York courts grapple with is whether the facts alleged in a complaint give rise to claims for both breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.

What is behind the lawsuit accusing Hitachi of Stealing Trade Secrets from Purolite? At the end of August, Purolite, an American water treatment company based in Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the American branch of Japanese conglomerate Hitachi. According to Purolite, Hitachi violated the stipulations of a business agreement by sharing Purolite's confidential trade secrets concerning the decontamination of water, including water contaminated by radioactive waste. Puro