Opinion
8137 & M-5914 Index 653284/11
01-17-2019
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York (Roger A. Cooper, New York, of counsel), for appellant. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Andrew J. Rossman, New York, of counsel), for respondent. Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Erik Haas, New York, of counsel), for amicus curiae.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York (Roger A. Cooper, New York, of counsel), for appellant.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Andrew J. Rossman, New York, of counsel), for respondent.
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Erik Haas, New York, of counsel), for amicus curiae.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Mazzarelli, Kahn, JJ.
Despite the discretion afforded to defendant under the parties' agreements to calculate its loss after the agreements had been terminated, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether defendant's loss calculation was reasonable and in good faith as required by the agreements. The court properly considered plaintiff's evidence, including expert reports, in support of its claim that defendant's calculations were not reasonable under the circumstances (see Hoag v. Chancellor, Inc. , 246 A.D.2d 224, 230–231, 677 N.Y.S.2d 531 [1st Dept 1998] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief granted.