REYNA M. ESPINAL, 10270A. PLAINTIFF, v. CITY OF NEW YORK def

10270-. REYNA M. ESPINAL, 10270A. PLAINTIFF, v. CITY OF NEW YORK def — TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., d/b/a TIME WARNER CABLE THROUGH ITS NEW YORK CITY DIVISION, SUED HEREIN AS TIME WARNER CABLE OF NYC, Third-Party plf-res, v. HYLAN DATACOM & ELECTRICAL INC., Third-Party def-ap — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Joseph Horowitz of counsel), for ap — Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C., New York (Richard E. Schmedake of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered July 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of third-party plaintiff (Time Warner) for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant (Hylan) and denied Hylan's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealable, denied Hylan's motion to, inter alia, renew, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10270-. REYNA M. ESPINAL, 10270A. PLAINTIFF, v. CITY OF NEW YORK def — TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., d/b/a TIME WARNER CABLE THROUGH ITS NEW YORK CITY DIVISION, SUED HEREIN AS TIME WARNER CABLE OF NYC, Third-Party plf-res, v. HYLAN DATACOM & ELECTRICAL INC., Third-Party def-ap — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Joseph Horowitz of counsel), for ap — Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C., New York (Richard E. Schmedake of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered July 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of third-party plaintiff (Time Warner) for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant (Hylan) and denied Hylan’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealable, denied Hylan’s motion to, inter alia, renew, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

The subject indemnification clause provides that Hylan”shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless [Time Warner]… against and from: claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court and other proceeding costs and all other costs incurred to enforce the indemnity granted in this Section)… threatened, brought or instituted, arising out of or in any way connected with the acts or omissions of [Hylan]… except to the extent attributable to the negligence of [Time Warner].” Such language is clear and unambiguous, and, pursuant thereto, Hylan is required to indemnify Time Warner for the costs it incurred in defending itself against plaintiff’s claims, including reasonable attorneys’ fees (see Hooper Assoc. v. AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491-492 [1989]).

REYNA M. ESPINAL, 10270A. PLAINTIFF, v. CITY OF NEW YORK def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal