You are here: / / LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR...
,

LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the limitation of liability provision precluded recovery for breach of contract for any amount over the limitation. The contract was an exclusive licensing agreement (ELA) for a securities trading system (ATS). The First Department noted that it was proper to consider the limitation of liability, an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss:

​

It was not error for Supreme Court to rule on the enforceabilty of the liability limitation provision, although it is an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss. In the ordinary course of deciding motions, courts consider whether documentary evidence establishes an asserted defense, in this case a defense concerning the limitation of liability provisions in the parties’ contracts … .

​

New York courts routinely enforce such liability-limitation provisions, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties. The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[a] limitation on liability provision . . . represents the parties’ Agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor.* * * [The parties] may later regret their assumption of the risks of non-performance in this manner, but the courts let them lie on the bed they made”… . However, such clauses are unenforceable when, “[i]n contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing. This can be explicit, as when it is fraudulent, malicious or prompted by the sinister intention of one acting in bad faith. Or, when, as in gross negligence, it betokens a reckless indifference to the rights of others, it may be implicit” … . Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00380, First Dept 1-15-18

CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE PURPORTED WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS NOT IN WRITING AS REQUIRED BY GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-103, PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE.
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward
Response to Flooding Caused by Storm Not “Routine Maintenance”
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).
THE LETTER CRITICIZING THE FORMER DEAN OF THE FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT DEFAMATORY ON ITS FACE, BUT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Release Did Not Exclude Liability for Personal Trainer’s Negligence

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

LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER... MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE...