Opinion
8476, 8477.
July 20, 2006.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 4, 2005, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $329,800 on its first cause of action, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 24, 2005, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $83,881.69 in attorneys' fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Before: Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
The conclusion that there was a fee agreement breached by defendants is supported by the evidence. To the extent that the modified contract transmitted to plaintiff by defendants' principal represented a counteroffer, the parties' conduct evidences acceptance ( see Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v Beam Constr. Corp., 41 NY2d 397, 399-400; Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 44; cf. Lorbrook Corp. v G T Indus., 162 AD2d 69, 74-75), and the contract did not require procurement of a funding party who had not previously dealt with defendants. The evidence did not support a faithless servant defense ( cf. Bon Temps Agency v Greenfield, 184 AD2d 280, 281, lv dismissed 81 NY2d 759).
The court correctly construed the parties' indemnification agreement as requiring defendants to reimburse plaintiff for legal fees in connection with enforcement of the contract ( see Breed, Abbott Morgan v Hulko, 74 NY2d 686; Scheer v Kahn, 221 AD2d 515, 517-518). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them without merit.