Robbins v. Profile Records, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 67, 698 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11638
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 67 (Robbins v. Profile Records, Inc.) 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
Robbins v. Profile Records, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 67, 698 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 2, 1998, which, upon plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4403, confirmed in its entirety the report of the Special Referee, dated November 26, 1998, inter alia, awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees in the sum of $160,431, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Paragraph 5 of the parties’ security agreement provided that defendant would indemnify plaintiff for attorney’s fees “incurred by or asserted against [plaintiff] and arising from the occurrence of an Event of Default”. Paragraph 2 of the security agreement defined defendant’s failure to make payments under the subject promissory note as an event of default. Taken together, these provisions unequivocally refer to claims between the parties themselves and the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the indemnity clause was appropriate (see, Sagittarius Broadcasting Corp. v Evergreen Media Corp., 243 AD2d 325; Promuto v Waste Mgt., 44 F Supp 2d 628, 650-652).

Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument that plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees because he did not honor the [68]*68notice and disclosure conditions of the indemnity clause. The indemnity clause did not require continuing notice each time the claim for legal fees increased. The summons and complaint in this action, which sought attorney’s fees in the ad damnum, gave defendant actual notice of the claim, and proceedings and pleadings in the litigation, by their occurrence, informed defendant that plaintiffs fees were increasing.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Guarantee Co. of N. Am. USA v. Xin Dev. Group Intl., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 34408(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 67, 698 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-profile-records-inc-nyappdiv-1999.