Morel v. Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morel v. Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity

126 A.D.3d 605, 3 N.Y.S.3d 597

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket14608 112782/10 590138/12

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 605 (Morel v. Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity) 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

Morel v. Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity, 126 A.D.3d 605, 3 N.Y.S.3d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted third-party plaintiffs Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and New York Hotel Management Company, Inc.’s motion to reargue the prior order, same court and Justice, entered August 10, 2012, dismissing New York Hotel’s claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant, and upon reargument, reinstated said claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the lease agreement, as altered by its sixth and seventh amendments, clearly and unambiguously expanded the definition of an “Owner” to be indemnified by third-party defendant to include New York Hotel Management Company.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted third-party plaintiffs Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and New York Hotel Management Company, Inc.’s motion to reargue the prior order, same court and Justice, entered August 10, 2012, dismissing New York Hotel’s claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant, and upon reargument, reinstated said claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the lease agreement, as altered by its sixth and seventh amendments, clearly and unambiguously expanded the definition of an “Owner” to be indemnified by third-party defendant to include New York Hotel Management Company.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 605, 3 N.Y.S.3d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morel-v-holy-spirit-assn-for-the-unification-of-world-christianity-nyappdiv-2015.