Parkway Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine LLC v. Vitullo

72 A.D.3d 1513, 900 N.Y.S.2d 563
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 1513 (Parkway Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine LLC v. Vitullo) 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
Parkway Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine LLC v. Vitullo, 72 A.D.3d 1513, 900 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered August 14, 2009 in an action for, inter alia, breach of contract. The order denied the motion of Benedetto Vitullo, M.D. for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff medical practice commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Benedetto Vitullo, M.D. (defendant), one of plaintiffs members, contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that, pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement (agreement) between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff must indemnify him for the attorney’s fees and costs that he incurred in defending this action. We affirm.

“Inasmuch as a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney’s fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees, the court should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise” (Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 492 [1989]). Here, the broad indemnification clause in the parties’ agreement does not even refer to litigation between the parties to the agreement. The agreement thus does not make it “unmistakably clear” that the parties intended that plaintiff must indemnify defendant for attorney’s fees and costs arising from the instant litigation (id.; see Digital Broadcast Corp. v Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 412 [2008]; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 29 AD3d 315, 316 [2006]; cf. Western Beef Mariners Harbor, LLC v Vornado Forest Plaza, LLC, 61 AD3d 745 [2009]). Present— Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Related

Eshaghian v. Eshaghian
2019 NY Slip Op 1743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
ISKALO 5000 MAIN LLC v. TOWN OF AMHERST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPM
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Iskalo 5000 Main LLC v. Town of Amherst Industrial Development Agency
147 A.D.3d 1414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
West Vernon Petroleum Corp. v. Singer Holding Corp.
103 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY v. O'BRIEN, PAUL W.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Colonial Surety Co. v. Genesee Valley Nurseries, Inc.
94 A.D.3d 1422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.3d 1513, 900 N.Y.S.2d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkway-pediatric-adolescent-medicine-llc-v-vitullo-nyappdiv-2010.