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
Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Where Plaintiff Submits an Affidavit/Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Amend the Complaint
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.
JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER WHEN HE WAS INJURED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMIISED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENSE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DEMAND; ON APPEAL THE PEOPLE ARGUED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS; BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND IN THE MOTION COURT, THE PEOPLE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS THEREFORE ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS STEMMING FROM AN ATTACK ON THE COMPLAINANT, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OR ABSENCE OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 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...