Meyerson v. Tullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyerson v. Tullman

281 A.D.2d 170, 721 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2248

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 17, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, enjoined the defendant corporate general partner and its employees from paying legal fees related to the defense of this action out of the assets of the restaurant operated by the limited partnership, and directed defendants to reimburse the restaurant for legal fees previously paid, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion to enjoin payment of legal fees and to require defendants to reimburse fees paid thus far denied.

The motion court erred in granting plaintiffs motion since the limited partnership agreement specifically provides for [171] defendants’ indemnification, including attorneys’ fees that may be “paid as incurred,” barring fraud, willful misconduct or unless such indemnification is prohibited by law. Plaintiffs unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misconduct are insufficient to bar indemnification pursuant to this provision. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 17, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, enjoined the defendant corporate general partner and its employees from paying legal fees related to the defense of this action out of the assets of the restaurant operated by the limited partnership, and directed defendants to reimburse the restaurant for legal fees previously paid, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion to enjoin payment of legal fees and to require defendants to reimburse fees paid thus far denied.

The motion court erred in granting plaintiffs motion since the limited partnership agreement specifically provides for [171] defendants’ indemnification, including attorneys’ fees that may be “paid as incurred,” barring fraud, willful misconduct or unless such indemnification is prohibited by law. Plaintiffs unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misconduct are insufficient to bar indemnification pursuant to this provision. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Meyerson v. Tullman, 281 A.D.2d 170, 721 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 170 (Meyerson v. Tullman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related