You are here: / / HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR”...
,

HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR” THAT THE LOSER WOULD PAY THE WINNER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES; THEREFORE THE FEE AWARD WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs, who prevailed in this contract action (based upon a license to repair damage to plaintiffs’ property), were not entitled to have the defendants pay their attorney’s fees because the contract did not explicitly so provide:

“Under the general rule, attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” (id.). “The promise should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances” .. . “Inasmuch as a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney’s fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees, the court should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise” … .

Here, the license did not provide for attorney’s fees for the instant litigation. Neither of the paragraphs in the license regarding attorney’s fees provided for attorney’s fees in litigation between the parties over alleged breaches of the license. Because the parties did not make “unmistakably clear” in the license that they intended to depart from the general rule that the losing party is not responsible for the winning party’s attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees … . Giannakopoulos v Figame Realty Mgt., 2023 NY Slip Op 04364, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: The general rule is each party pays its own attorney’s fees. Any contract to the contrary must be “unmistakably clear,” not the case here.

 

You might also like
Late Notice of Claim Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse
PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Employment Contract Deemed Hiring “At Will”—No Fixed Duration
THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING” THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF A VEHICLE CAN BE CHARGED TO THE JURY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Neither CPLR 5015 Nor Family Court Act 451 Was a Bar to Mother’s Petition to Modify a Child-Support Money Judgment by Temporarily Suspending Interest

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND...