From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Altchek v. DiGennaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the respondents must indemnify him for loans he obtained for the respondents after an indemnification agreement was signed. Although it is clear that the respondents agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loans obtained by him prior to the date the agreement was signed, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an agreement to indemnify the plaintiff after the date the agreement was signed.

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 (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 N.Y.2d 205). The promise to indemnify 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 (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, supra). The language of the agreement clearly indicated that the respondents would only indemnify the plaintiff for loans made prior to the date the agreement was signed.

The plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of an oral agreement with the respondents to indemnify him for loans made after the written agreement was signed, and thus does not raise a triable issue of fact (see, Indig v Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728; Maviglia v Inapart Props. Corp., 149 A.D.2d 482).

The plaintiff also contends that the indemnification clauses in certain shareholder agreements constituted valid indemnification agreements. However, the indemnification clauses did not contain all of the material terms of an indemnification agreement and thus did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds (see, Standard Oil Co. v Koch, 260 N.Y. 150).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Altchek v. DiGennaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Altchek v. DiGennaro

Case Details

Full title:IRA ALTCHEK, Appellant, v. IRIS DIGENNARO et al., Defendants, and GARDENIA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 3, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

In re Indesco International, Inc.

The caselaw addressed by the litigants — principally state law cases, with perfunctory discussions, which…

Wave Crest Construction, Inc. v. Cartier

The plaintiff further alleged that in reliance upon this representation, it subordinated a judgment in the…