Julien Entertainment.Com, Inc. v. Live Auctioneers, LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 8933, 145 A.D.3d 623, 42 N.Y.S.3d 822
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 2016
Docket2327 652791/11
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8933 (Julien Entertainment.Com, Inc. v. Live Auctioneers, LLC) 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
Julien Entertainment.Com, Inc. v. Live Auctioneers, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8933, 145 A.D.3d 623, 42 N.Y.S.3d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered August 3, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Live Auctioneers, LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence and on its counterclaim for contractual indemnification, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the counterclaim for contractual indemnification, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established prima facie that its conduct was not grossly negligent and that it was therefore entitled to enforce the contractual limitations on liability contained in its “Terms & Conditions Acknowledgement [sic] Form” (see Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821 [1993]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit evidence that supported its allegation that defendant knowingly and intentionally created confusion on its website. The evidence shows, at most, ordinary negligence on defendant’s part (see Lubell v Samson Moving & Stor., 307 AD2d 215 [1st Dept 2003]).

Defendant’s counterclaim for contractual indemnification was correctly dismissed since the indemnification provision does not demonstrate unmistakably that the parties intended the loser in litigation between them to indemnify the winner for legal fees (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491-492 [1989]; Gotham Partners, L.P. v High Riv. Ltd. Partnership, 76 AD3d 203 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Related

Slocum Realty Corp., etc. v. Schlesinger
2018 NY Slip Op 4587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NY Slip Op 8933, 145 A.D.3d 623, 42 N.Y.S.3d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julien-entertainmentcom-inc-v-live-auctioneers-llc-nyappdiv-2016.