Morgan Servs., Inc. v. Lavan Corp., C/O Hotel Lafayette, 451 N.E.2d 480 (N.Y. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Morgan Servs., Inc. v. Lavan Corp., C/O Hotel Lafayette, 451 N.E.2d 480 (N.Y. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ames Linen Service v. Katz (nyappdiv, 2004-06-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ames Linen Service v. Katz (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Although defendant calculated plain tiffs initial purchases at $6,303.24, * defendant’s calculations do not consider (1) the difficulty in ascertaining the useful life of such items, (2) the cost to plaintiff of replacing the initial inventory as it wore out during the contract term prior to the breach, (3) plaintiffs labor and capital costs, or (4) the uncertainty that the inventory could be released by plaintiff (see Morgan Servs. v Lavan Corp., supra at 798).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Willner v. Willner
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · confidence medium
Liquidated damages clauses are suited to factual situations where there is uncertainty concerning the measure of damages (see, Morgan Servs. v Lavan Corp., 59 NY2d 796, 797 [the liquidated . damages clause in a contract for the rental of uniforms held valid in an action for loss of future profits in that it "bore a reasonable relation to the amount of probable actual harm for breach of that contract, there being uncertainty concerning the re-rental or sale value of the uniforms”]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morgan Services, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Lavan Corporation, C/O Hotel Lafayette, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 2, 1983.
451 N.E.2d 480
1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3136
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lawrence A. Schulz for appellant., Gerard J. O’Brien for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons Concur.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reducing the total damages awarded to $23,092.06 and, as so modified, should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

The Appellate Division having affirmed the Trial Judge’s findings that both contracts were breached by defendant, that issue is beyond our review. On the principle of Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd (41 NY2d 420) we agree with the conclusion of both courts below that the provision for liquidated damages in the rental contract bore a reasonable relation to the amount of probable actual harm for breach of that contract, there being uncertainty concerning the re-rental or sale value of the uniforms supplied by plaintiff under the contract. The parties agreed that the correct damage figure on this contract is $2,971.19.

As to the laundry contract, the Trial Judge made no award, finding that plaintiff incurred no expense and was not entitled to liquidated damages. The Appellate Division concluded that the liquidated damage clause was legal and[*798] proper and we agree, the damages being unpredictable in view of the labor and capital costs that the contract involved and the uncertainty that after a contract breach they would be fully utilized during the remainder of the contract term. On this contract, the Appellate Division adopted the amount, $20,120.87, mistakenly fixed by the Trial Judge as the damages for the rental contract. We find the weight of the evidence to support the method of calculation used by the Appellate Division.

Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to total damages of $23,092.06.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.