In The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. D’Agostino Supermarkets, the Court of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed the principle that “parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause provided that the clause is neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy.” However, the judges split 4-3 on the issue of whether the relevant damages clause in a commercial lease was unenforceable as a matter of law because it was so grossly disproportionate to the ascertainable amount due upon full performance.

D’Agostino Supermarkets (D’Agostino) leased commercial space from The Trustees of Columbia University (Columbia). After D’Agostino failed to make certain rent payments in a timely manner, the parties agreed to terminate the original lease and enter a separate Surrender Agreement in exchange for D’Agostino’s (1) surrender of the premises and (2) staggered payment of back rent. If D’Agostino defaulted, the Surrender Agreement required that “the aggregate amount of all Fixed Rent, additional rent or other sums and charges due and payable during the term of the Lease shall immediately thereafter come due and payable by Tenant to Landlord and [] Tenant shall no longer be entitled to be released and relieved from and against any Released Claims.” After executing the Surrender Agreement, Columbia was able to relet the premises to a new tenant. D’Agostino subsequently failed to make all required payments under the Surrender Agreement, and Columbia sued for breach of that Agreement. Columbia filed a motion for summary judgment seeking more than $1 million pursuant to the damages provision in the Surrender Agreement which represented the future rent payments due under the terminated lease. D’Agostino filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in which it agreed to pay the approximately $176,000 in outstanding payments due under the Surrender Agreement and accrued interest, but argued that liquidated damages in the amount of future rent under the terminated lease are grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained by its breach of the Surrender Agreement. The Supreme Court denied Columbia’s motion and granted D’Agostino’s cross-motion. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]