From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuller-Mosley v. Seminary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2008
47 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2553.

January 17, 2008.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 20, 2006, in an action for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from, awarding defendant architect contractual indemnification against defendant general contractor in the principal amount of $283,499.20, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deduct from such award any legal fees incurred in pursuing the claims for contractual indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded to the trial court to determine the amounts of such deductions, if any.

Mauro Goldberg Lilling LLP, Great Neck (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Irvin Lederer of counsel), for Union Theological Seminary, respondent.

Gogick, Byrne O'Neill, LLP, New York (Anthony W. Vaughn, Jr. of counsel), for Venezia Bishop Partners, P.C., Jeff Venezia, Thomas Bishop and Thomas Bishop Architects, respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.


The general contractor concedes liability to the architect on its claims for contractual indemnification, but argues, correctly, that under its contract with the owner, the architect is entitled to be indemnified only for attorneys' fees attributable to its defense of claims arising out of its work, not its pursuit of claims for indemnification ( see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487), and that the architect failed to make this necessary differentiation. In this regard, it appears that the trial court entered judgment in favor of the architect in the amount requested, without giving any consideration to the amount, if any, it expended in establishing its right to contractual indemnification. As the record is inadequate to determine the amounts, if any, expended in the pursuit of the indemnification claim, remand to the trial court is necessary. On remand, the trial court is also to address the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the architect, concerning which the present record is bereft of evidence.


Summaries of

Fuller-Mosley v. Seminary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2008
47 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Fuller-Mosley v. Seminary

Case Details

Full title:JANESIA FULLER-MOSLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2008

Citations

47 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 341
851 N.Y.S.2d 401

Citing Cases

Ezzard v. One E. River Place Realty Co.

The indemnity clause does not require a finding of negligence or fault on NYE's part (see DiPerna v. American…

Agricola v. New York

The Supreme Court properly determined that the indemnification clause did not require Northeast to provide a…