Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulko
This text of 541 N.E.2d 402 (Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulko) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The narrow question before us is whether, under the circumstances presented, defendant agreed to indemnify plaintiff for its legal expenses incurred resisting defendant’s claims (see, Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5). We conclude that defendant did so agree, for the reason stated in the opinion of the late Justice Leonard H. Sandler that if this agreement did not include plaintiff law firm’s "legal expenses incurred in defending against an action by one of the parties alleging misconduct by the escrowee which resulted in a determination in favor of the escrowee, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain for what it was that the parties had agreed to indemnify the escrowee.” (139 AD2d 71, 73.)
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
[688]*688Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the affirmative.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
541 N.E.2d 402, 74 N.Y.2d 686, 543 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breed-abbott-morgan-v-hulko-ny-1989.