Farms 2d, supra , at 424.) The promisor, fearing the punitive financial havoc that would
befall him, would continue to perform, or the promisee, in the event he did not, would realize a
reward far beyond his actual loss. In either event, an injustice would be done. Thus, the rule has
evolved that a liquidated damages clause will be enforced if the sum stated is reasonably
proportionate to the loss anticipated and the amount of actual loss would be difficult if not
impossible to calculate. (Supra, at 425.) Whether a contractual provision is enforceable
presents a question of law for the court. (Mosler Safe Co. v [*6]Maiden Lane Safe Deposit Co., 199 NY, supra , at
485.) Applying the foregoing principles to the facts at hand, we agree with the IAS Court's
determination that the amount stipulated to as liquidated damages does not bear a reasonable
relation to the actual amount of probable damage that would befall defendant in the event of
plaintiff's default before taking possession and, thus, that it constitutes a penalty.
In this lease the provisions at paragraph 34 (read together with paragraphs 21 and 23) stating
two remedies available to the landlord if due to abandonment and/or early termination of the
lease by the tenant, i.e., forfeiture of the $850 security deposit as well as the tenant being liable
for the balance of the rent due until the date the lease agreement ended by its terms taken
separately appear to be allowable under New York law. However, when these remedies are
imposed in conjunction with each other rather than an election of remedies available to the
landlord does this lease term become unconscionable under Real Property Law 235-c(1)?
A review of the lease's terms pertaining to the security deposit does not indicate the security