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
THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DAY CARE PROVIDER TESTIFIED HER BACK WAS TURNED WHEN INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE SLIDE; THE DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Method of Service of Citation Should Be Calculated to Provide Notice Based Upon Facts Known To Court
FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUE ON A PRIOR APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GRANTED; THE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
City Can Not Be Held Liable for Injuries Caused by Attacking Dogs About Which Complaints Had Been Made—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiff’s Decedent and City

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...