Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brooks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brooks

193 A.D.2d 503, 597 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5006

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 503 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brooks, 193 A.D.2d 503, 597 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered November 13, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion to renew its motion for summary judgment as against defendants Michael and Shirley Brooks, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against Michael and Shirley Brooks is granted.

In this action by plaintiff to enforce its rights under a contractual indemnity agreement, the IAS Court erroneously concluded that a question of fact existed whether the indemnity agreement at issue constituted a continuing guarantee. The agreement is clear and unambiguous; it provides that the "continuing request to Aetna for the furnishing of Bonds” is to remain in full force and effect until an indemnitor gives written notice of termination (see, United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Green, 64 Misc 2d 1, affd 34 AD2d 935). Accordingly, under the clear terms of the agreement, defendants are required to indemnify plaintiff for the bonds furnished on behalf of Nu Service Tobacco Co., Inc. and All County Wholesalers, Inc., regardless of whether defendants ceased having business relationships with these corporations prior to the issuance of the bonds (Chemical Bank v Sepler, 60 NY2d 289, 294). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered November 13, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion to renew its motion for summary judgment as against defendants Michael and Shirley Brooks, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against Michael and Shirley Brooks is granted.

In this action by plaintiff to enforce its rights under a contractual indemnity agreement, the IAS Court erroneously concluded that a question of fact existed whether the indemnity agreement at issue constituted a continuing guarantee. The agreement is clear and unambiguous; it provides that the "continuing request to Aetna for the furnishing of Bonds” is to remain in full force and effect until an indemnitor gives written notice of termination (see, United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Green, 64 Misc 2d 1, affd 34 AD2d 935). Accordingly, under the clear terms of the agreement, defendants are required to indemnify plaintiff for the bonds furnished on behalf of Nu Service Tobacco Co., Inc. and All County Wholesalers, Inc., regardless of whether defendants ceased having business relationships with these corporations prior to the issuance of the bonds (Chemical Bank v Sepler, 60 NY2d 289, 294). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 503, 597 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-brooks-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack