United States: Pleading Lost Profits Damages In New York And Federal Courts

The ability for plaintiffs to plead and prove lost profits, and for defendants to avoid the results of such potential adverse judgments, has long been a unique, shifting and challenging issue in New York state and federal litigation.

Lost profits do not need to be merely speculative damages if a plaintiff can provide a strong basis for the damages alleged. For their part, defendants can overcome claims for lost profits by making a substantial showing that the plaintiff cannot demonstrate damages with reasonable certainty.

This article will examine the current jurisprudence and highlight recent case law in several different kinds of cases concerning the recoverability of lost profits, the evidence required for a party's burden of proof, and what potential defendants should consider in attacking such prima facie evidence.

Lost Profits in Breach of Contract Cases

In a breach of contract action brought under New York law, a party generally may recover lost profits if: (1) its alleged lost profits were caused by the breach of contract; (2) the damages were fairly within the contemplation of the parties when contracting and; (3) the damages can be proved with a reasonable certainty.1 Damages from lost profits are often considered speculative when a party cannot provide an adequate evidentiary basis for the damages claim.2

In June 2015, on appeal from a nonjury trial in which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Appellate Division, Second Department, highlighted an important issue in the calculus of lost profits: that the standard of reasonable certainty does not wholly preclude approximations.3 Family Operating v. Young Cab, involved a breach of contract action between a taxi operator and the owner of two New York City taxi medallions. There, the Appellate Division faced a claim that the owner of the taxi medallions violated the terms of an agreement to lease the taxi medallions.4 The Appellate Division upheld New York law in ruling that "[w]here the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for lost profits, such profits must also be 'within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into' and, even though required to be proven with reasonable certainty, damages 'resulting from the loss of future profits are often an approximation.'" (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).5

Several courts have ruled similarly and permitted lost profits to be proven as an approximation. For example, the Appellate Division, First Department, in Wathne Imports v. PRL USA, applied New York common law in affirming that "a degree of uncertainty is to be expected in assessing lost profits" (internal quotations omitted).6 The Appellate Division further affirmed that an estimate of lost profits incurred through a breach of contract "necessarily requires some improvisation, and the party who has caused the loss may not insist on theoretical perfection." (internal quotation marks omitted).7 Likewise the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying New York law, held that the district court confused the benefit of the bargain with speculative profits on collateral transactions, and that a plaintiff could seek lost profits as general damages.8 Thus, lost profit calculations should include enough evidence to plead and prove approximate lost profits.

As Always, Evidence Matters

Central to a plaintiff's ability to successfully prove lost profits is a strong evidentiary showing that links the defendant as the proximate cause of the plaintiff's lost profits. Although lost profits may appear to be speculative, strong admissible evidence can shift the alleged theory of damages from the overly abstract to the legitimate.

The plaintiff in Family Operating, was able to satisfy lost profits by offering the testimony of a witness who calculated lost profits by subtracting expenses from the revenue, which would have been generated by the plaintiff's collection of lease fees from individual taxicab drivers.9 Furthermore, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the expenses provided for in the agreement were the same expenses the plaintiff used in calculating its lost profits. In contrast, the defendant "declined to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness as to damages at trial or to specifically dispute any of the calculations."10 Where testimony is offered to establish lost profits, defendants must make a strategic decision whether to conduct cross examinations, but leaving evidence uncontroverted may prove problematic.

Federal district courts in New York have also held that gross profits alone cannot be relied upon to establish reasonably certain lost profit damages.11 In RGI Brands v. Cognac Brisset-Aurige, S.a.r.l., the plaintiff sought monetary damages including lost sales damages of at least $600,000 for, inter alia, defendant's alleged breaches of an exclusive distribution agreement for specific brands of vodka bottles.12 The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), applying New York law, found plaintiff's calculation of lost profits to be "predicated solely on the amount of gross receipts from customers, not the net profit." Further, the S.D.N.Y. held that the plaintiff failed to consider the costs of running a business, "market fluctuations over the course of fifteen years and a host of other variables that would almost certainly change customers' purchasing patterns."13 The S.D.N.Y. concluded that RGI did not provide an adequate basis for its projection of lost profits and declined to award lost profit damages.14

New Businesses Face Greater Scrutiny

It should be noted that new businesses often face a higher evidentiary standard for proving lost profits than established business. By virtue of being a new business, a stricter standard is generally imposed upon a plaintiff claiming lost profits because there is no prior experience from which to base an estimate of lost profits.15 Accordingly, claims for lost profits by new business run the risk of being more speculative and further away from an estimation calculated with reasonable certainty.16

For example, lost profits were denied where a plaintiff sought to project eight years of lost profits based on just two months of revenues in a new business venture.17 Case law going back almost 100 years in the New York Court of Appeals further demonstrates that what's old and time tested is seemingly new again: Courts are "reluctant" to grant lost profits damages in cases with new business ventures.18 Thus, when making a claim for lost profits, it is important for a party to consider whether it has an adequate track record on which to base the damages alleged.

Lost Profits in N.Y. U.C.C. Matters

KSW, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in New York, filed an action in the Supreme Court, Queens County, alleging breach of contract for an agreement with JCI, a Wisconsin-based corporation for the sale of air handling units to be used in a construction project (KSW Action).19 KSW alleged damages in the amount of $1,833,555, including amounts paid and outstanding for subcontractors' work, KSW's increased overhead, and lost profits.20 On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the KSW Action migrated to the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.).21

The E.D.N.Y. applied New York law to its analysis of whether the purchase order of the air handling units was governed by the New York Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.).22 Defendant JCI moved for summary judgment arguing that because KSW accepted the goods at issue, U.C.C. §2-709 should mandate summary judgment in its favor. Defendant further alleged that KSW's purported damages must be barred as consequential damages.23

On the question of whether the New York U.C.C. was applicable, the E.D.N.Y. held, that "[e]ven the buyer's acceptance of tendered goods does not extinguish all opportunity to recover damages on a breach of contract."24 The E.D.N.Y. further quoted New York U.C.C. §2-607(2), affirming that "[a]cceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted ... but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this Article for non-conformity." (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added). The E.D.N.Y. held that "given that the line 'between direct and consequential damages is a question of fact' it cannot be said that as a matter of law that KSW's claimed damages are consequential or incidental, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment in favor of its counterclaim is denied." (internal quotations omitted).

Although lost profits are sometimes characterized as consequential damages, the E.D.N.Y.'s holding in the KSW Action reminds practitioners that whether lost profits are consequential or incidental damages is truly a question of fact. KSW alleged that it incurred damages as a proximate cause of defendant supplying non-conforming goods that were "not pre-assembled, including assembly costs, costs for the rigger to lift additional crates, costs to construct and design supports, costs for the use of a crane, and a 15% markup for KSW's additional overhead and diminished profits." (emphasis added)25 Although the E.D.N.Y. refrained from addressing the "reasonableness" of KSW's alleged damages, it held that "... whether or not [it] is possible for KSW to state a claim for such damages under the U.C.C. and the terms of the contract, this Court cannot find as a matter of law that KSW's damages are precluded consequential or incidental damages."26 The E.D.N.Y. concluded that "if direct damages are 'what it would take to put the non-breaching party in the same position that it would be in had the breaching party performed as promised under the contract,' KSW's enumerated costs might well fall within that definition."27 (internal quotations omitted.).

The KSW Action is an important reminder to practitioners that lost profits, often deemed consequential or incidental damages, can prove tantamount to direct damages when only an award of damages "equal to lost profits will put the non-breaching party in the same position he would have occupied had the contract been performed."28

Establishing Lost Profits in RICO Matters

Claims for lost profits are not confined only to garden variety commercial litigation breach of contract actions. Several Second Circuit district courts have held that a plaintiff in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action may recover lost profits, provided that the general limitations of proximate cause and lack of "speculativeness" apply.29

In Elsevier v. W.H.P.R. (Elsevier Action), Elsevier, the publishers of scholarly scientific, technical and medical journals brought a RICO claim against defendant subscription agents and subscribers alleging, inter alia, that defendants conspired to defraud plaintiffs by placing purchase orders for thousands of scholarly journals priced at a lower, discounted "individual" subscription rate, instead of at the higher "institutional" rate, and subsequently reselling the journals to institutions for more than the individual rate.30 The Elsevier plaintiffs alleged lost profits asserting that as a result of defendants' fraudulent scheme "they suffered a 'loss of subscription revenue'—specifically, the difference between the individual rates plaintiffs actually received, and the higher rates they would have received if the institutional end users had subscribed to the journals." (internal quotations omitted).31

The S.D.N.Y. held that the plain language of the RICO statute does not bar a plaintiff from recovering lost profit damages "proximately caused by the racketeering enterprise engaged in subscription fraud."32 In making this determination, the S.D.N.Y. engaged in a close reading of Second Circuit case law, which it held, supports the conclusion that a plaintiff can "adequately plead RICO damages by alleging lost profits where, as here, they constitute an injury to plaintiffs' business, were proximately caused by the alleged racketeering, and are not merely speculative."33

For example, in Terminate Control v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335 (2d Cir. 1994), the Second Circuit upheld a jury award of lost profits stemming from construction contracts the plaintiff might have obtained but for the racketeering, "where plaintiff had proceeded on the theory that the lost profits constituted business injury caused by a racketeering conspiracy."34 Further, in a class action suit for damages under RICO, the Second Circuit similarly held that a RICO plaintiff who alleged that defendant-competitor hired undocumented aliens in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to, inter alia, underbid in competing firms, adequately pled lost profits under RICO by alleging lost business profits directly caused by defendant-competitor's fraudulent hiring scheme.35

The Elsevier court held that plaintiffs did not seek to recover lost profits that "would have been generated by the fraudulent subscription agreements with defendants. Instead, [plaintiffs] allege that defendants' subscription fraud—their racketeering—directly caused plaintiffs to lose revenues that they otherwise would have earned by selling the subscriptions at the higher institutional rate."36 The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs adequately pled RICO damages, including damages for lost profits because plaintiff's RICO claim sought to recover profits "that they allegedly would have earned if the racketeering had not occurred."37


A court's analysis of claims for lost profit damages may boil down to a plaintiff's ability to successfully demonstrate in a non-speculative manner that defendant's actions are the proximate cause of specified lost profits. Depending on the individual facts of a case, with a strong evidentiary footing, lost profits are attainable. Likewise, a lack of strong evidentiary footing can provide defendants with a strong basis for rebutting such claims.


1. Washington v. Kellwood Co., 105 F. Supp. 3d 293, 312-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Int'l Telecom. v. Generadora Electrica del Oriente S.A., 2004 WL 784941, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. April 13, 2004) (internal quotations omitted).

2. Int'l Telecom. v. Generadora Electrica del Oriente S.A., 2004 WL 784941, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. April 13, 2004) (internal quotations omitted).

3. Family Operating, v. Young Cab, 129 A.D.3d 1016 (2d Dep't 2015).

4. Id.

5. Id. at 1017.

6. Wathne Imports v PRL USA, 101 A.D.3d 83, 88-89 (1st Dep't 2012).

7. Id.

8. Tractebel Energy Mktg. v. AEP Power Mktg., 487 F.3d 89, 111 (2d Cir. 2007).

9. Family Operating v. Young Cab, 129 A.D..3d 1016, 1018 (2d Dep't 2015).

10. Id.

11. RGI Brands v. Cognac Brisset-Aurige, S.a.r.l., 2013 WL 1668206, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. AprIL 18, 2013); Healing Power v. Ace Cont'l Exps., 2008 WL 4693246 at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008).

12. Id.

13. Id. (internal citations omitted)

14. Id. at 13.

15. ACCD Global Agriculture and Curt Meltzer v. Alan P. Perry and Farm Technologies Network, 2013 WL 840706, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2013).

16. Int'l Telecom. v. Generadora Electrica del Oriente S.A., 2004 WL 784941, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. April 13, 2004) (internal quotations omitted); Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 67 N.Y.2d 257, 261-62 (1986).

17. Id. at 4.

18. ACCD Global Agriculture, 2013 WL 840706, at *5; Cramer v. Grand Rapids Show Case Co., 223 N.Y. 63, 119 N.E. 227, 228-29 (N.Y. 1918).

19. KSW Mechanical Services v. Johnson Controls, 992 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

20. Id.

21. Id.

22. Id. at 142.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 143.

25. KSW Mechanical Services v. Johnson Controls, 992 F. Supp. 2d 135, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

26. Id.

27. Id.

28. Id. at 135; see also Westlaw headnote 10.

29. Elsevier v. W.H.P.R., 692 F. Supp. 2d 297, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

30. Id.

31. Id. at 310.

32. Id.

33. Id.

34. Id.

35. Commercial Cleaning Servs. v. Colin Serv. Sys., 271 F.3d 374, 384 (2d Cir. 2001).

36. Id. at 311.

37. Id.

Previously published in the April 6 issue of New York Law Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions