Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises
No Reporter Information (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Specific performance of a contract is properly denied when money damages are an adequate remedy, even if the subject of the contract is physically unique. The appropriateness of specific performance depends not on physical uniqueness, but on the uncertainty of valuing the subject matter and the balance of hardships between the parties.
Facts:
- Van Wagner Advertising (Van Wagner) leased exterior wall space on a building in Manhattan from Barbara Michaels for the purpose of erecting a billboard.
- The location was unique as it was visible to traffic exiting the Midtown Tunnel.
- Van Wagner erected a sign and subleased it to Asch Advertising, Inc.
- Michaels sold the building to S & M Enterprises (S & M).
- S & M had acquired other properties on the block and intended to demolish the buildings to construct a large mixed-use development.
- S & M sent Van Wagner a letter purporting to cancel the lease under a clause allowing for termination upon a 'bona fide sale of the building.'
- Van Wagner vacated the space under protest.
Procedural Posture:
- Van Wagner Advertising Corp. commenced an action against S & M Enterprises in New York Supreme Court (trial court) for a declaration that the lease was still in effect, specific performance, and damages.
- The trial court denied Van Wagner's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Following a nonjury trial, the court found S & M breached the contract and that the space was unique, but denied specific performance because damages were an adequate remedy and specific performance would be inequitable.
- The trial court awarded Van Wagner damages for lost profits on its sublease through the date of the trial.
- Both parties cross-appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment without opinion.
- The New York Court of Appeals granted both parties leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a lessee entitled to the remedy of specific performance for a landlord's breach of a lease for unique billboard space when money damages can be calculated with reasonable certainty and equitable relief would impose a disproportionate hardship on the landlord?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. A lessee is not entitled to specific performance for a breach of a lease involving unique property where money damages provide an adequate remedy and the equitable relief would disproportionately harm the breaching party. The court determined that physical uniqueness alone is not the deciding factor for granting specific performance. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether the property's value is so uncertain that an award of money damages would risk undercompensating the injured party. Here, although the billboard's location was unique, its value could be calculated with reasonable certainty by comparing it to other commercial billboard spaces. Furthermore, the court found that forcing S & M to honor the lease would impose an undue hardship by halting its multi-million dollar development project, a harm that would be disproportionate to the benefit Van Wagner would receive from retaining that specific location when it could be compensated financially.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the doctrine of specific performance, particularly the concept of 'uniqueness.' The court moves the analysis away from a property's inherent physical attributes toward an economic assessment of its value and substitutability. The decision establishes that if a court can, at a reasonable cost, obtain enough information to calculate damages with reasonable certainty, specific performance is inappropriate. It solidifies the principle that specific performance is an extraordinary remedy and reinforces the importance of balancing the equities, preventing the remedy from becoming a tool that imposes a disproportionate or oppressive burden on the breaching party.
Unlock the full brief for Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises