NRT New York, LLC v. Kontos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NRT New York, LLC v. Kontos

101 A.D.3d 584, 955 N.Y.2d 518

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 584 (NRT New York, LLC v. Kontos) 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

NRT New York, LLC v. Kontos, 101 A.D.3d 584, 955 N.Y.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The indemnification clause at issue here clearly and unambiguously makes third-party defendant Triton’s indemnification of Kontos conditioned upon Triton’s use of a broker other than Corcoran. Thus, Triton promised that if it violated the contract by dealing with another broker and that broker sued Kontos, Triton would indemnify Kontos for the cost of defending such suit. With regard to indemnification, the sales contract promised that, and nothing more, and this Court rejects Kontos’ attempt to read into the clause a duty by Triton to otherwise indemnify Kontos (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491-492 [1989]). Moreover, neither Kontos’ conclusory allegations in his complaint nor parol evidence may be used to alter the plain meaning of the contract (WWW Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]; Harvey v Greenberg, 82 AD3d 683 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

The indemnification clause at issue here clearly and unambiguously makes third-party defendant Triton’s indemnification of Kontos conditioned upon Triton’s use of a broker other than Corcoran. Thus, Triton promised that if it violated the contract by dealing with another broker and that broker sued Kontos, Triton would indemnify Kontos for the cost of defending such suit. With regard to indemnification, the sales contract promised that, and nothing more, and this Court rejects Kontos’ attempt to read into the clause a duty by Triton to otherwise indemnify Kontos (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491-492 [1989]). Moreover, neither Kontos’ conclusory allegations in his complaint nor parol evidence may be used to alter the plain meaning of the contract (WWW Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]; Harvey v Greenberg, 82 AD3d 683 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 584, 955 N.Y.2d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nrt-new-york-llc-v-kontos-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack