Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co.

91 A.D.2d 542, 457 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19362

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1982·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Evans, J.), entered July 30,1982 denying petition to stay arbitration of Claim No. 2 in respondent’s demand to arbitrate is affirmed, with costs. Although the formula for fixing damages is styled a penalty in the agreement between the parties, that designation is not dispositive. (See Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 425.) When the provision is considered in light of the facts established in this record, it is apparent that the formula represented a reasonable estimate by the parties at the time they entered into their agreement for fixing the injury that would be sustained as a result of a breach. Accordingly, we agree with Special Term that the provision in question was one for “liquidated damages”, and does not violate public policy. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Lynch and Milonas, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Evans, J.), entered July 30,1982 denying petition to stay arbitration of Claim No. 2 in respondent’s demand to arbitrate is affirmed, with costs. Although the formula for fixing damages is styled a penalty in the agreement between the parties, that designation is not dispositive. (See Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 425.) When the provision is considered in light of the facts established in this record, it is apparent that the formula represented a reasonable estimate by the parties at the time they entered into their agreement for fixing the injury that would be sustained as a result of a breach. Accordingly, we agree with Special Term that the provision in question was one for “liquidated damages”, and does not violate public policy. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Lynch and Milonas, JJ.

Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co., 91 A.D.2d 542, 457 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

91 A.D.2d 542 (Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related