You are here: / / BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S...
, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the law firm defendants demonstrated plaintiff attorney violated the confidentiality provision of her employment contract, the law firm was not entitled to enforcement of the liquidated damages provision of the contract because the law firm did not demonstrate it suffered any damage as a result of plaintiff’s breach. In addition, plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the law firm defendants violated an oral agreement promising her a five percent bonus related to attorney’s fees paid for cases in which she was involved should not have been dismissed because she presented some evidence she had in fact been paid several such bonuses:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation. If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced” … . Although the party challenging the liquidated damages provision has the burden to prove that the liquidated damages are, in fact, an unenforceable penalty … , the party seeking to enforce the provision must necessarily have been damaged in order for the provision to apply … . Here, defendants did not identify to the motion court any damages that they sustained as a result of plaintiff’s breach of the agreement. …

The law firm defendants met their burden on summary judgment by providing plaintiff’s employment agreement which did not include any reference to a 5% nondiscretionary bonus, and which included a general merger clause requiring any modification to be in writing. However, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to this claim. … [T]he Court of Appeals has held that while generally an oral modification may not be enforced in light of a merger clause, an oral modification may be enforced if there is partial performance that is “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” or if one party “induced another’s significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification.” Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00250, First Dept 1-14-20

 

You might also like
A DEFENDANT WHO HAS WAIVED INDICTMENT CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WHICH INCLUDES AN OFFENSE GREATER THAN ANY CHARGED IN THE CORRESPONDING FELONY COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Governmental Immunity Applied to Preclude Recovery by Bicyclist​
THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOOTING WAS DNA ON A HANDGUN; THE EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT).
IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (FIRST 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY... DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE...