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
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT).
Elements of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained
Being Thrown from the Forks of a Forklift Is a Gravity Related Event Under Labor Law 240 (1)
City Was Not Required to Consider the Petitioners’ Preferred Scenario for Development—City Was Required Only to Consider the “No Action” Alternative
Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED A REASONABLE EXCUSE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MELTED ICE CREAM ON THE STAIRS, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE CREAM HAD BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...