Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BENJAMIN PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 583-587 BROADWAY CONDOMINIUM, etc., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered April 21, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its cause of action seeking liquidated damages for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting that portion of the motion which, in essence, sought a declaration that the liquidated damages clause is enforceable, and not an unenforceable penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
There are questions of fact as to whether plaintiff restricted access to defendant's building, thereby breaching the agreement and causing delay in performance of the work. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first cause of action seeking liquidated damages.
Supreme Court erred, however, in denying that aspect of the motion which, in essence, sought a declaration that the liquidated damages clause is, as a matter of law, enforceable, rather than being an unenforceable penalty. Plaintiff made a prima facie showing both that damages flowing from the alleged breach were, at the time the parties entered into the agreement, difficult to ascertain and that the provision fixing damages is a reasonable measure of the anticipated probable harm (see Truck Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Puritan Farms 2nd, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 420, 423-424, 393 N.Y.S.2d 365, 361 N.E.2d 1015 [1977] ). In opposition, defendant failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding whether the damages flowing from the alleged breach were readily ascertainable at the time the parties entered into the agreement, or as to whether the damages fixed in the agreement are conspicuously disproportionate to the losses sustained (see Bates Adv. USA, Inc. v. 498 Seventh, LLC, 7 N.Y.3d 115, 120, 818 N.Y.S.2d 161, 850 N.E.2d 1137 [2006]; JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 380, 795 N.Y.S.2d 502, 828 N.E.2d 604 [2005] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 16, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)