From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyerson v. Tullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2001
281 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 6, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 17, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, enjoined the defendant corporate general partner and its employees from paying legal fees related to the defense of this action out of the assets of the restaurant operated by the limited partnership, and directed defendants to reimburse the restaurant for legal fees previously paid, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs' motion to enjoin payment of legal fees and to require defendants to reimburse fees paid thus far denied.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Williams, Tom, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.


The motion court erred in granting plaintiff's motion since the limited partnership agreement specifically provides for defendants' indemnification, including attorneys' fees that may be "paid as incurred", barring fraud, willful misconduct or unless such indemnification is prohibited by law. Plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misconduct are insufficient to bar indemnification pursuant to this provision.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Meyerson v. Tullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2001
281 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Meyerson v. Tullman

Case Details

Full title:RAY MEYERSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR TULLMAN, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 517

Citing Cases

Swetnick v. Bell

Consequently, as per the express terms of these partnership agreements, Bell is entitled to indemnification,…

Deutsche Bank v. Tri-Links

Tri-Links' argument that the WMI action falls within section 11.06's exclusion for losses "resulting from the…