You are here: / / LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S...
, ,

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the liquidated damages provision in the non-compete covenant was enforceable and the defendant should have been granted summary judgment on its claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to the employment contract. Plaintiffs had argued the liquidated damages encompassed the defendant’s attorneys’ fees:

… [W]e conclude that the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the liquidated damages clauses are enforceable because they represent a ” reasonable measure of the anticipated probable harm’ ” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. We note that plaintiffs do not dispute that the potential damages flowing from a breach of the restrictive covenant were not readily ascertainable at the time the parties entered into the employment agreements … . Indeed, the fact that these types of damages are difficult to measure provides the foundation for a liquidated damages clause … .

… [T]he attorney fee clause of the employment agreement is not duplicative of the liquidated damages clause. One of the express purposes of the liquidated damages clause is “avoiding the costs, expenses, and uncertainties of litigation over the amount of actual damages that will be suffered by the Employer in the event of breach” … . Here, defendant seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the restrictive covenant and the liquidated damages clause, which is distinct from any attorney’s fees and costs that would be incurred in litigation over the amount of actual damages … . Mathew v Slocum-Dickson Med. Group, PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03059, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-COMPETE COVENANT (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (EMPLOYMENT LAW , NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))/LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (NON-COMPETE COVENANT, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.
WHERE A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE PRESENTATIOIN OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE TO ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE RECORD (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Properly Awarded Sole Custody to Mother, Despite Expressed Wishes of Adolescent Child
Sheriff Entitled to Poundage Even If No Money Collected—Execution by Sheriff Triggered Settlement
DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE ISSUES AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA UPON LEARNING OF THE ERROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH 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

SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER... WHERE FATHER RELINQUISHED CUSTODY BY CONSENT, HE NEED NOT MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING...