to the formation of the contract. Thus, they do not address any action taken by Defendants during performance which had the effect of preventing Plaintiffs from receiving the benefits of their lease, and therefore do not support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Arguably, the third claim alleging a breach resulting from omissions could be interpreted to allege a non-disclosure occurring after formation of the contract. However, even so construed, the claim is still not legally sufficient. To demonstrate a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, parties must generally show that they have been deprived of a contract right by an affirmative act, not merely a failure to act. See, e.g., M/A-COM Sec. Corp. v. Galesi, 904 F.2d 134, 136 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Leberman v. John Blair &
holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract holding that under the implied covenant of good faith neither party to a contract shall do anything which has the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract holding that a promisor impliedly pledges that it shall not do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the promise holding that where a city enters contract in excess of its statutory power the mere fact that the municipality has received the benefits of the contract which has been performed by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification estoppel or implied contract in order to do justice to the other party by paying the reasonable value of the property or services recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate