York courts do not imply a preclusion of equitable remedies absent specific contractual language to that effect. 545 F.3d at 130-31 (also citing Papa Gino’s of Am., Inc., 135 A.D.2d at 76, 524 N.Y.S.2d at 538 (“[A] liquidated damages clause does not bar the equitable relief of specific performance unless there is explicit language that it is to be the sole remedy for a breach.”)). Accord, e.g., Granite Broadway Dev. LLC v. 1711 LLC, 44 A.D.3d 594, 594-95, 845 N.Y.S.2d 10, 11 (1st Dep’t 2007) (affirming award of liquidated damages and specific performance and noting that “a provision extinguishing rights or obligations will not be implied absent clear and express language to that effect”); Coizza v. 164-50 Crossbay Realty Corp., 37 A.D.3d 640, 643, 831 N.Y.S.2d 433, 436 (2d Dep’t 2007) (<HOLDING>); Barclay Arms Assocs. v. Clemente, 98 A.D.2d
holding that liquidated damages under fair labor standards act constitutes compensation for the retention of a workmans pay which might result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla holding that language of contract did not limit plaintiffs recovery to liquidated damages holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award