Baquerizo v. Monasterio

90 A.D.3d 587, 933 N.Y.2d 869
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 2011·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

An escrow agent “not only has a contractual duty to follow the escrow agreement, but additionally becomes a trustee of anyone with a beneficial interest in the trust” (Takayama v Schaefer, 240 AD2d 21, 25 [1998]). Accordingly, the escrow agent has a duty not to deliver the property held in escrow to anyone except upon “strict compliance with the conditions imposed” in the escrow agreement (id. at 25 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Thus, an escrow agent can be held liable for breach of the escrow agreement and breach of fiduciary duty as escrowee” (id. at 25; see Grinblat v Taubenblat, 107 AD2d 735 [1985]). An attorney holding funds in escrow owes a fiduciary duty “to ‘anyone with a beneficial interest in the trust’ ” (Levit v Allstate Ins. Co., 308 AD2d 475, 477 [2003], quoting Takayama v Schaefer, 240 AD2d at 25).

While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s reliance upon lack of privity as a basis for dismissing the causes of action sounding in breach of the subject escrow agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant’s motion to dismiss those causes of action was properly granted, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The documentary evidence submitted on the motion included the escrow agreement, which contained an exculpatory clause that bound the plaintiffs and waived any liability against the defendant except for gross negligence or willful misconduct (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 553 [1992]). Furthermore, the complaint did not contain any factual allegations of gross negligence or willful misconduct, and the documentary ev[588] idence “conclusively established]” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]) that the defendant was not grossly negligent, did not engage in willful misconduct, and did not breach the escrow agreement, but instead properly disbursed the escrow funds upon receipt of notification from the plaintiffs specifically authorizing their release (see generally Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 759 [2011]). Mastro, A.EJ., Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baquerizo v. Monasterio, 90 A.D.3d 587, 933 N.Y.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 587 (Baquerizo v. Monasterio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hosannah v. Millennium Abstract Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 04763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Lantz v. Lantz
217 A.D.3d 1228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Zi Kuo Zhang v. Lau
210 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Shan Yun Lin v. Lau
178 N.Y.S.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Gargano v. Morey
2018 NY Slip Op 6882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Leak v. Live Well Financial, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Sasidharan v. Piverger
2016 NY Slip Op 8387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Educational Center for New Americans, Inc. v. 66th Avenue Realty Co.
131 A.D.3d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Lizjan, Inc. v. Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC
117 A.D.3d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC
117 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Lawrence v. Kennedy
95 A.D.3d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)