You are here: / / CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...

CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractual provision limiting damages was enforceable. Plaintiff, Astoria, owned a power station and hired defendant, Rileu, to overhaul a steam boiler, which exploded. The contract limited Riley’s damages to one and a half times the contract price:

A clear contractual provision limiting damages is enforceable, unless there is a special relationship between the parties, there is a statutory prohibition against it, or it is against public policy because the conduct of the party seeking to enforce it was grossly negligent … . Here, Riley established, prima facie, that the clear limitation of liability provision contained in the addendum to the contract was part of an arm’s length transaction between the parties, two sophisticated commercial entities, and is thus valid and enforceable … . Riley further established, prima facie, that there was no special relationship between it and Astoria, that there was no statutory prohibition against the limitation of liability provision, and that the provision was not against public policy … . Astoria Generating Co., LP v Riley Power, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00560, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

You might also like
THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE.
Criteria for Causes of Action Discussed in Extensive Modification of Supreme Court’s Orders
THE GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY COVID-19 TOLLS OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW FOR FILING CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CAUSES OF ACTION BY 228 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY.
DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Withdrawal Was Authorized, Despite Absence of Signature
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND 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

TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION... PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’...