Opinion
2012-03-20
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, respondent, v. Barry STRANSKY, et al., appellants.
King & King, LLP, Long Island City, N.Y. (Peter M. Kutil of counsel), for appellants. Torre, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Benjamin D. Lentz, Mark S. Gamell, and Lawrence S. Novak of counsel), for respondent.
King & King, LLP, Long Island City, N.Y. (Peter M. Kutil of counsel), for appellants. Torre, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Benjamin D. Lentz, Mark S. Gamell, and Lawrence S. Novak of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action for reimbursement pursuant to indemnity agreements, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 28, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court entered October 12, 2010, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $2,536,775.70.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint seeking reimbursement from the defendants pursuant to two indemnity agreements. The plaintiff met its prima facie burden by submitting the underlying disputed performance and payment bonds, the indemnity agreements, the completion contract, and itemized statements of loss and expense demonstrating that the defendants had a duty to reimburse the plaintiff for its expenditures in ensuring the completion of the underlying work, and also that the amount it paid was reasonable ( see Lee v. T.F. DeMilo Corp., 29 A.D.3d 867, 868, 815 N.Y.S.2d 700). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( id.). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.