AmericaConsultants v. Cedar Income Fund Partnership L.P.

31 A.D.3d 306, 820 N.Y.S.2d 514

This text of 31 A.D.3d 306 (AmericaConsultants v. Cedar Income Fund Partnership L.P.) 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
AmericaConsultants v. Cedar Income Fund Partnership L.P., 31 A.D.3d 306, 820 N.Y.S.2d 514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

14] 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.

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’ [307]*307principal represented a counteroffer, the parties’ conduct evidences acceptance (see Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v Beam Constr. Corp., 41 NY2d 397, 399-400 [1977]; Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 44 [1999]; cf. Lorbrook Corp. v G & T Indus., 162 AD2d 69, 74-75 [1990]), 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 [1992], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 759 [1992]).

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 [1989]; Scheer v Kahn, 221 AD2d 515, 517-518 [1995]). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

BROWN BROS. v. Beam Constr.
361 N.E.2d 999 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulko
541 N.E.2d 402 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
Lorbrook Corp. v. G & T Industries, Inc.
162 A.D.2d 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Bon Temps Agency Ltd. v. Greenfield
184 A.D.2d 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Scheer v. Kahn
221 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates
258 A.D.2d 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.3d 306, 820 N.Y.S.2d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/americaconsultants-v-cedar-income-fund-partnership-lp-nyappdiv-2006.