Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1915–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
American List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc.green2 sentences2023The doctrine of anticipatory breach provides that "a wrongful repudiation of the contract by one party before the time for performance . . . relieves the nonrepudiating party of its obligation of future performance and entitles that party to recover the present value of its damages from the repudiating party's breach of the total contract" ( American List Corp. v U.S. News & World Report , 75 NY2d 38, 44 [citations omitted]). 2015Defendants’ argument overlooks the doctrine of anticipatory breach, which relieves a “nonrepudiating party of its obligation of future performance and entitles that party to recover the present value of its damages from the repudiating party’s breach of the total contract” (American List Corp. v U.S. News & World Report, 75 NY2d 38, 44 [1989]; see Pitcher v Benderson-Wainberg Assoc. | 3 | 3 |
ESPN, Inc. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseballgreen2 sentences2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). 2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). | 2 | 2 |
Livingston v. Klawgreen2 sentences2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). 2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). | 2 | 2 |
Awards. Com v. Kinko's, Inc.green2 sentences2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). 2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). | 2 | 2 |
Awards.com v. Kinko's, Inc.green2 sentences2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). 2022However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach ( see ESPN, Inc. v Office of Commr. of Baseball , 76 F Supp 2d 383, 387-388 [SD NY 1999]; see also Awards.com v Kinko's, Inc. , 42 AD3d 178, 188-189 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1025 [2008]; Livingston v Klaw , 137 App Div 639, 640 [1st Dept 1910]). | 2 | 2 |
Parlux Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLCgreen2 sentences2022A party "cannot simultaneously pursue a breach of contract claim and an anticipatory breach claim premised on the same underlying conduct" ( Mr. Olympia , LLC v Ultimate Nutrition , Inc ., 2018 WL 1322201 , *4, 2018 US Dist LEXIS 41000 , *9-10 [SD NY, March 13, 2018, No. 17-CV-1346 (ALC)]; see Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enters., LLC , 204 AD3d 72, 90 [1st Dept 2022], citing Glen Banks, New York Contract Law § 17:19 at 1048-1051 [2d ed 28 West's NY Prac Series 2017]). 2022A party "cannot simultaneously pursue a breach of contract claim and an anticipatory breach claim premised on the same underlying conduct" ( Mr. Olympia , LLC v Ultimate Nutrition , Inc ., 2018 WL 1322201 , *4, 2018 US Dist LEXIS 41000 , *9-10 [SD NY, March 13, 2018, No. 17-CV-1346 (ALC)]; see Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enters., LLC , 204 AD3d 72, 90 [1st Dept 2022], citing Glen Banks, New York Contract Law § 17:19 at 1048-1051 [2d ed 28 West's NY Prac Series 2017]). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Werner v. Werner
neutral
2 sentences1938(Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362 .) We think that the contract before us should be governed in this respect by the principle laid down in Wharton & Co. v. Winch (supra).” In Werner v. Werner, No. 3 (supra), this court said (at p. 14): “ It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date.” Applying the law thus enunciated to the facts here, it is clear that the letter of December 1918I believe that this ease comes within the rule laid down by this court in Werner v. Werner, No. 3 ( 169 App. Div. 9 ), where the present presiding justice of this court said (p. 14): “ It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date.” That was an action to recover two installments of $2,500 each due on July 15 and October 15, 1914, under a written agreement between the par | 2 | 1918–1938 |
William Wharton, Jr., & Co. v. Winch
green
2 sentences1938(Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362 .) We think that the contract before us should be governed in this respect by the principle laid down in Wharton & Co. v. Winch (supra).” In Werner v. Werner, No. 3 (supra), this court said (at p. 14): “ It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date.” Applying the law thus enunciated to the facts here, it is clear that the letter of December 1915(Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362 .) We think that the contract before us should be governed in this respect by the principle laid down in Wharton & Co. v. Winch (supra).” It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date. | 2 | 1915–1938 |
Howard v. . Daly
green
2 sentences1938(Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362 .) We think that the contract before us should be governed in this respect by the principle laid down in Wharton & Co. v. Winch (supra).” In Werner v. Werner, No. 3 (supra), this court said (at p. 14): “ It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date.” Applying the law thus enunciated to the facts here, it is clear that the letter of December 1915(Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362 .) We think that the contract before us should be governed in this respect by the principle laid down in Wharton & Co. v. Winch (supra).” It has been expressly held that a breach of a contract to pay money in future installments gives no right to bring suit until the future day is reached, or, in other words, that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a contract to pay money at a future date. | 2 | 1915–1938 |
Bell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n of Omaha
green
1 sentence1986(Cf. Bell v Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn., 19 Misc 2d 754 , where the insured arbitrarily stopped payments and thus repudiated the policy.) Absent special circumstances, it is plain, as Special Term held, that New York does not apply the doctrine of anticipatory breach where there is an alleged repudiation of an executory contract for the payment of money only. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pollack v. Pollack
green
1 sentence1977In this case, therefore, it is not necessary to enlarge the doctrine as far as have some jurisdictions (see, e.g., Pollack v Pollack, 46 SW2d 292 [Tex], supra) or to consider generally whether the doctrine of anticipatory breach should be applicable to unilateral contracts (see 4 Corbin, Contracts, §§ 962-964). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Bernstein v. . Meech
green
1 sentence1935(See e. g., Traver v. Halsted, 23 Wend. 66, 70 ; Bernstein v. Meech, 130 N. Y. 354, 358 ; Segall v. Finlay, 245 id. 61, 64.) The application of these principles to the case at bar will be obvious. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Traver v. Halsted
green
1 sentence1935(See e. g., Traver v. Halsted, 23 Wend. 66, 70 ; Bernstein v. Meech, 130 N. Y. 354, 358 ; Segall v. Finlay, 245 id. 61, 64.) The application of these principles to the case at bar will be obvious. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Kelly v. . Security Mutual Life Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1915In Kelly v. Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. ( 186 N. Y. 16 ) the question was whether there could be an anticipatory breach giving the injured party the right to sue at once for damages for breach of a contract to pay the amount of the ^policy on the death of the assured. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.