Ayala v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ayala v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

22 A.D.3d 394, 802 N.Y.S.2d 362

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 394 (Ayala v. Lockheed Martin Corp.) 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

Ayala v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 22 A.D.3d 394, 802 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J), entered July 12, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed as moot defendants-appellants’ motion seeking summary judgment upon their third-party claim for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the complaint in the main action had been dismissed, there was no surviving issue as to whether appellants were entitled to prevail on their third-party claim for indemnification. We note that even if attorneys’ fees had been sought in the third-party complaint, they would not have been recoverable since the indemnitor’s obligation to reimburse appellants for their attorneys’ fees is not “unmistakably clear” from the relied-upon indemnity provision (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 492 [1989]; Utilisave Corp. v Benjamin Shapiro Realty Co., 282 AD2d 403 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 677 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J), entered July 12, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed as moot defendants-appellants’ motion seeking summary judgment upon their third-party claim for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the complaint in the main action had been dismissed, there was no surviving issue as to whether appellants were entitled to prevail on their third-party claim for indemnification. We note that even if attorneys’ fees had been sought in the third-party complaint, they would not have been recoverable since the indemnitor’s obligation to reimburse appellants for their attorneys’ fees is not “unmistakably clear” from the relied-upon indemnity provision (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 492 [1989]; Utilisave Corp. v Benjamin Shapiro Realty Co., 282 AD2d 403 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 677 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 394, 802 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayala-v-lockheed-martin-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack