You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that the provision of the “Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Stock” (PSA) which awarded double attorney’s fees if litigation resulted from a breach was an unenforceable penalty. The decision, which includes legal analysis well worth reading, is a complex discussion of the covenant not to compete and the nonsolicitation agreement which is too detailed and fact-specific to summarize here. There is an extensive dissent. With respect to the “double attorney’s fees” provision, the court wrote:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination that the provision of the PSA, which, in the event of litigation, allows for a recovery of double the amount of attorneys’ fees expended by the substantially prevailing party, is an unenforceable penalty. When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms … . Paragraph 10.11 of the PSA clearly sets forth the intent of the parties, two sophisticated businesspeople with the benefit of counsel, that, should litigation arise out of the PSA, the “substantially prevailing party” is entitled to two times reasonable attorneys’ fees. Where, as here, “there is no deception or overreaching” in the making of such agreement, the agreement should be enforced as written … . Moreover, while each party asserted in the Supreme Court, and asserts on appeal, that he should prevail and be treated as the prevailing party for the purpose of paragraph 10.11, neither party contended in the Supreme Court that the double attorneys’ fees provision of paragraph 10.11 should not be enforced. Loughlin v Meghji, 2020 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

You might also like
PURSUANT TO THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS ABOUT FINES IMPOSED BY DEFENDANT NATURAL-GAS PROVIDER MUST FIRST BE HEARD BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Doctrines Do Not Apply to “Nominal Parties” or to Prior Proceedings With Lower Standard of Proof.
THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) [Documentary Evidence] Should Not Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Rebutted the Presumption of Validity of the Forum Selection Clause of the Relevant Contract

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

NASSAU COUNTY SUPREME COURT CANNOT VACATE A DEFAULT ORDER ISSUED BY NEW YORK... THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE...