You are here: / / LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S...
, ,

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the liquidated damages provision in the non-compete covenant was enforceable and the defendant should have been granted summary judgment on its claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to the employment contract. Plaintiffs had argued the liquidated damages encompassed the defendant’s attorneys’ fees:

… [W]e conclude that the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the liquidated damages clauses are enforceable because they represent a ” reasonable measure of the anticipated probable harm’ ” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. We note that plaintiffs do not dispute that the potential damages flowing from a breach of the restrictive covenant were not readily ascertainable at the time the parties entered into the employment agreements … . Indeed, the fact that these types of damages are difficult to measure provides the foundation for a liquidated damages clause … .

… [T]he attorney fee clause of the employment agreement is not duplicative of the liquidated damages clause. One of the express purposes of the liquidated damages clause is “avoiding the costs, expenses, and uncertainties of litigation over the amount of actual damages that will be suffered by the Employer in the event of breach” … . Here, defendant seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the restrictive covenant and the liquidated damages clause, which is distinct from any attorney’s fees and costs that would be incurred in litigation over the amount of actual damages … . Mathew v Slocum-Dickson Med. Group, PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03059, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-COMPETE COVENANT (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (EMPLOYMENT LAW , NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Judges Not Obligated to Adhere to Pay-Voucher Recommendations Made by Assigned Counsel Program
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for Deceptive Business Practices Explained
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR A STIGMA-PLUS 43 USC 1983 VIOLATION AND DEFAMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED UPON A STATEMENT BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF DISREGARDING COVID POLICY AND ENDANGERING STUDENTS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER ECONOMIC HARM AND THE STATEMENT WAS PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A TOWN POLICE OFFICER ARE CONTROLLED BY THE TOWN LAW AND THE TOWN POLICE MANUAL, NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Damages in Firefighters’ Discrimination Suit Modified
THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY GAVE THE INSURER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE POLICY BY NOT PROSECUTING THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER... WHERE FATHER RELINQUISHED CUSTODY BY CONSENT, HE NEED NOT MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING...