From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hay Group Inv. Holding v. Saatchi Saatchi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).


We find that the IAS Court properly determined that defendant was obligated to indemnify plaintiffs for contingent employer and employee payroll tax liabilities and withholding tax liabilities of defendant's subsidiaries, recorded as of July 31, 1990, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties' written Purchase Agreement governing the sale of various subsidiaries to plaintiffs. The record reveals that defendant's contention, that it was not obligated to indemnify plaintiffs for withholding and payroll taxes attendant to bonuses that accrued prior to the closing date of July 31, 1990 because those bonuses were not actually paid until after that date, is negated by the explicit terms of the parties' Purchase Agreement (section 3.3 [f]; schedule 3.3 [f]), wherein payroll, employment and withholding taxes are specifically enumerated as contingent liabilities for which defendant must indemnify plaintiffs. Where, as here, the intention of the parties is determinable by construction of the parties' written agreement, the question is one of law, and was therefore appropriately determined on the cross motions for summary judgment ( Benjamin Elec. Eng'g Works v Rampert Constr. Assocs., 173 A.D.2d 370, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1006).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Hay Group Inv. Holding v. Saatchi Saatchi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Hay Group Inv. Holding v. Saatchi Saatchi

Case Details

Full title:HAY GROUP INVESTMENT HOLDING B.V. et al., Respondents, v. SAATCHI SAATCHI…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 368

Citing Cases

Weening v. Modes Distex Inc.

Defendants also argue that, because plaintiff and Barakett exchanged a series of e-mails after the initial…

Sumitomo Bank of N.Y. Trust v. N. Hempstead

n addition, it is clear that the contracts at issue here anticipated that the original Transfer Station…