Interco Systems, Inc. v. Gager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interco Systems, Inc. v. Gager

162 A.D.2d 1026, 559 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish that it suffered any damages from defendant’s alleged breach of the employment agreement; therefore, the liquidated damages

[1027]*1027clause is punitive, unconscionable and unenforceable (see, Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 424-425; cf., Viaggio & Sons v City of New York, 114 AD2d 939). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish that it suffered any damages from defendant’s alleged breach of the employment agreement; therefore, the liquidated damages

[1027]*1027clause is punitive, unconscionable and unenforceable (see, Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 424-425; cf., Viaggio & Sons v City of New York, 114 AD2d 939). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Interco Systems, Inc. v. Gager, 162 A.D.2d 1026, 559 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

162 A.D.2d 1026 (Interco Systems, Inc. v. Gager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related