Exhibit,Appendix: Ian Macdonald, James Roberts, Beth Ann Cassidy-Roberts v. Turner Construction Company, The New York And Presbyterian Hospital a.k.a. THE SOCIETY OF THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL

On June 30, 2017 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Beth Ann Cassidy-Roberts, Ian Macdonald, James Roberts, and The New York And Presbyterian Hospital A.K.A. The Society Of The New York Hospital, Turner Construction Company, for Torts - Other (LABOR LAW) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2022 01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2022

EXHIBIT A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2022 01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2022
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2022 01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2022
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
IAN MACDONALD, JAMES ROBERTS and BETH ANN
CASSIDY-ROBERTS, Index No.: 155973/2017

Plaintiffs,
-against- AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION TO
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and THE NEW DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL a.k.a. THE FOR JUDGMENT ON
SOCIETY OF THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL, THEIR ATTORNEYS FEES

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and THE NEW
YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Index No.: 595317/2019

Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-

PORT MORRIS TILE & MARBLE CORP.,

Third-Party Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PORT MORRIS TILE & MARBLE CORP., Index No.: 595549/2019

Second Third-Party Plaintiff
-against-

TEXRON COMMERCIAL AUTO BODY WORKS, INC.,

Second Third-Party Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HOWARD B. ALTMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the

State of New York, affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:

1. I am associated with the law firm of CASCONE & KLUEPFEL, LLP, attorneys for

Third-Party Defendant/Second-Third-Party Plaintiff, PORT MORRIS TILE & MARBLE

CORP., (“Port Morris”) and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this

matter.

1 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

2. I respectfully submit this affirmation in opposition to Defendants/Third-Party

Plaintiffs TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’s (“Turner”) and NEW YORK AND

PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL (“NYP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for a judgment on

their claim for attorneys’ fees.

Summary of Argument

3. Defendants seek entry of judgment in the amount of nearly $150,000 from

Port Morris for attorneys’ fees Defendants allegedly incurred in defending against this Labor

Law action that has not even gone to trial.

4. There are a host of fatal flaws in Defendants’ argument, any one of which taken

alone require that their motion be denied.

5. First, Defendants did not establish that they incurred any attorneys’ fees in

defending this action. The invoices attached to Defendants’ motion were issued to Zurich

American Insurance Company. Defendants adduced no evidence that they incurred or paid any

fees, and Defendants do not make Zurich a party plaintiff or otherwise indicate that Zurich is

seeking to recover fees it may have paid. This requires that Defendants’ motion be denied. See

Weinroth v. Swid, 267 A.D.2d 159, 163, 700 N.Y.S.2d 439, 443 (1st Dept. 1999)(Citibank itself

did not incur attorneys' fees, thus, it is not entitled to recoup attorneys’ fees).

6. Second, Defendants do not submit an affidavit from a party with personal

knowledge from Turner/NYP or even from Zurich as to what any of them may have paid out of

what was allegedly billed. Defendants submit only an attorneys’ affirmation asserting that

Cullen Dykman billed nearly $150,000. Cullen Dykman could have billed $10,000,000, it would

not mean that Defendants (or Zurich) paid this amount. For this reason, too, Defendants motion

2 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

should be denied. Schwartz v. 170 W. End Owners Corp., 161 A.D.3d 693, 79 N.Y.S.3d 13 (1st

Dept. 2018) (Attorney’s affirmation cannot establish a party’s entitlement to judgment).

7. Third, in Defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment, the granting of which

forms the basis for their current motion, Defendants sought only indemnification for any

damages they may owe to Plaintiff. Defendants did not seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees in

that motion, and thus cannot seek ‘judgment’ on their alleged fees here. Malcolm Shabazz Dev.

Corp. v. Wu, 71 Misc. 3d 900, 907, 146 N.Y.S.3d 416, 422 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)(plaintiff is not

entitled to claim as damages the attorney fees incurred in bringing and litigating this CPLR 3213

motion-action, because fees were not sought in plaintiff's original notice of motion).

8. Fourth, Defendants’ motion tells only part of the story. While Defendants assert

that Port Morris’s insurance carrier, National Casualty Company (“NCC”) agreed to defend

Defendants under a reservation of rights then failed to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees,

Defendants omit the fact that NCC withdrew the reservation of rights four years ago, in July

2018, agreed to afford Defendants a full defense, then asked Defendants to transfer the file to

NCC’s counsel so that NCC could afford Defendants a complete defense at no cost. (See

Exhibit C. infra). Although Defendants’ coverage dispute is not before this Court, Defendants’

refusal to permit NCC to insulate them (or Zurich) from paying defense costs, a failure to

mitigate damages at the very least, should not be rewarded with a windfall.

9. Finally, the invoices Defendants submit are just redacted not in part (e.g., to

redact privileged information) but are blacked out in their entirety. Port Morris – and the Court –

have no way of determining which entries pertain to defense and which pertain to Defendants’

pursuit of indemnification. While Defendants append a spreadsheet listing amounts counsel

allegedly deducted for fees relating to Defendants’ coverage dispute with NCC, neither Port

3 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

Morris nor the Court have any way of knowing whether this calculation is accurate, and

moreover, even if Defendants’ calculation is accurate, Defendants failed to deduct fees incurred

in prosecuting their third-party action against Port Morris, which fees are not recoverable under

the indemnification agreement. In re New York City Asbestos Litig., 142 A.D.3d 408, 39

N.Y.S.3d 125 (1st Dept. 2016) (Fees incurred in pursuing third-party action are not recoverable

on a contractual indemnification claim).

10. Based upon the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth below, Defendants’

motion should be denied.

Statement of Facts

A. Port Morris’s Contract and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

11. Defendants moved for summary judgment on or about September 25, 2020. Their

motion sought only (a) dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against them; and (b) indemnification for

any damages that may be awarded to Plaintiff. (See EFC Docs 64-66). An additional of

Defendants’ motion is attached, without exhibits, as Exhibit A.

12. The contract between Turner and Port Morris Defendants relied upon in their

motion for summary judgment (EFC Doc 81), an additional copy of which is attached as Exhibit

B, provides:

The Subcontractor agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Indemnified Party
from and against any and all such claims and further from and against any and
all loss, cost, expense, liability, damage, penalties, fines or injury, including
legal fees and disbursements, that the Indemnified Party may directly or
indirectly sustain, suffer or incur as a result thereof and the Subcontractor
agrees to and does hereby assume, on behalf of the Indemnified Party, the defense
of any action at law or in equity which may be brought against the Indemnified
Party upon or by reason of such claims and to pay on behalf of the Indemnified
Party, upon demand, the amount of any judgment that may be entered against
the Indemnified Party in any such action.

(Ex B, Art. XXIV)

4 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

B. Defendants’ Coverage with National Casualty

13. Turner and NYPH tendered their defense and indemnification to Port Morris’s

insurer carrier, National Casualty Company (“NCC”).

14. By letter dated November 7, 2017, NCC accepted the tender of defense of

Defendants subject to a reservation of rights.

15. Defendants disputed the reservation of rights, and by letter dated July 13, 2018,

NCC withdrew its reservation of rights, advised Defendants it would fully defend and indemnify

them against this action, and requested that Defendants transfer the file to Callahan & Fusco,

LLC so that Defendants may be afforded a complete defense by NCC at no cost to Defendants. A

copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit C. 1

. 16. Cullen & Dykman refused to transfer the file or permit NCC/its counsel assume

Defendants’ defense.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to refuse to permit NCC/its

counsel to assume their defense.

Argument

Defendants Motion Should be Denied

A. Defendants Did Not Meet Their Burden of Proof

18. It is well-settled that an attorney’s affirmation is insufficient to entitle a party to

judgment in its favor. Schwartz v. 170 W. End Owners Corp., 161 A.D.3d 693, 79 N.Y.S.3d 13

(1st Dept. 2018)(Attorney’s affirmation cannot establish a party’s entitlement to judgment). See

1
It is well-settled that an insurer has the right and duty to control the defense of an additional
insured as long as no conflict of interest exists. See Ottaviano v. Generx Co-op, Inc., 15 A.D.3d
924 (4th Dept. 2005).
5

5 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

United Specialty Ins. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 186 A.D.3d 650, 651, 129 N.Y.S.3d 510, 512 (2d

Dept. 2020)(We disagree with the Supreme Court's award of summary judgment in CCC's favor

as CCC failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a

matter of law. The affirmation of CCC's attorney was not based upon personal knowledge and,

thus, was of no probative or evidentiary significance); Blair v. Otto Brehm, Inc., 54 A.D.3d 702,

863 N.Y.S.2d 751 (Dept. 2008)(affirmation from employer's attorney and supporting exhibits

were insufficient to support its cross motion for summary judgment); Jeune v. O.T. Trans Mix

Corp., 29 A.D.3d 635, 815 N.Y.S.2d 182 (2d Dept.

2006)(attorney's affirmation was insufficient to meet defendants' initial burden on motion for

summary judgment).

19. Here, Defendants do not submit an affidavit from a party with personal

knowledge from Turner/NYP or even from Zurich as to what any of them may have paid.

Defendants submit only an attorneys’ affirmation asserting how much Cullen Dykman billed.

20. As Defendants failed to submit an affidavit from a party with personal knowledge

as to what was paid, Defendants motion should be denied.

C. Defendants Did Not Prove that *They* Incurred any Attorneys’ Fees

21. For similar reasons, Defendants’ motion should be denied because Defendants did

not establish that they incurred any attorneys’ fees in defending this action. The invoices attached

to Defendants’ motion were sent to Zurich American Insurance Company. Defendants adduced

no evidence that they incurred or paid any fees, and Defendants do not name Zurich or otherwise

indicate that Zurich is seeking to recover fees it may have paid. This requires that their motion be

denied. See Weinroth v. Swid, 267 A.D.2d 159, 163, 700 N.Y.S.2d 439, 443 (1st Dept.

1999)(Citibank itself did not incur attorneys' fees, thus, it is not entitled to recoup attorneys’ fees);

6 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

Lincoln Plaza Assocs. v. Various Tenants, 134 Misc. 2d 791, 797, 512 N.Y.S.2d 330, 333–34

(Civ. Ct. 1987), aff'd as modified sub nom. Lincoln Plaza Assocs. v. Andrews, 142 Misc. 2d 207,

539 N.Y.S.2d 612 (App. Term 1989)(Beyond a failure of adequate notice there is also a question

as to whether this fee paid by the sponsor is out of line compared to the work performed).

22. Central to any claim for damages is proof that they party seeking damages

demonstrably incurred an expense. Absent such proof, a claim for damages fails. Engelke v.

Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, 111 A.D.3d 444, 975 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1st Dept.

2013)(client did not incur any damages attributable to firm's alleged breach of duty, and firm thus

was not liable for legal malpractice); Jenkin v. Cadore, 185 A.D.3d 558, 126 N.Y.S.3d 202 (2d

Dept. 2020)(vendors did not sustain actual and ascertainable damages as result of any alleged

breach and thus could not recover).

23. As such, a party may not sue to recover fees it never incurred. Ovitz v. Bloomberg

L.P., 18 N.Y.3d 753, 967 N.E.2d 1170 (2012)(Even assuming that General Obligations Law's

lease renewal provisions supported implied private right of action, lessee of financial information

services and equipment did not suffer harm as result of lessor's automatic renewal of lease

following expiration of its two-year term where lessee did not pay any service

termination fees and did not pay for services he did not receive.) See Fertico Belgium S.A. v.

Phosphate Chemicals Exp. Ass'n, Inc., 120 A.D.2d 401, 404, 501 N.Y.S.2d 867, 870 (1st Dept.

1986), aff'd as modified, 70 N.Y.2d 76, 510 N.E.2d 334 (1987)(Fertico's characterization of these

profits as costs is misleading. It did not incur any such costs. Phoschem should not be required to

reimburse these costs since the obligation to which they relate was nonexistent at the time of

defendant's breach.). See also Falk v. Nassau Cnty., 175 A.D.3d 607, 106 N.Y.S.3d 347

7 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

(2019)(home buyer did not pay fees to obtain tax map certification letters from county clerk under

duress or due to a mistake of fact, as required to recover the fees)

24. Here, Defendants Turner and NYP did not adduce any evidence (let alone from a

party with personal knowledge) that they paid any attorney’ fees. Movants assert only that Cullen

and Dykman billed nearly $150,000 that may or may not have been paid by Zurich Insurance Co.

This failure to establish that Defendants incurred any expenses, much less $150,000, requires that

their motion be denied.

D. Defendants Are Seeking to ‘Recover’ Fees Another Party Already Paid

25. It is likewise settled that a party seeking to ‘recover’ fees or costs cannot ‘recover’

costs that were paid by a third party. To hold otherwise, would permit a windfall. Gottlieb v.

Michael Gottlieb, 138 A.D.3d 575, 576, 30 N.Y.S.3d 65, 67 (1st Dept. 2016) (even if a party is

entitled to recoup attorneys’ fees, such recovery will not be permitted where it would amount to

double recovery).

26. Thus, in Singh v. New York City Transit Auth., 17 A.D.3d 262, 263–64, 793

N.Y.S.2d 408, 410 (1st Dept. 2005), the First Department ruled that although the Transit

Authority had sought contractual indemnification on summary judgment under

the contract's indemnification provision, the motion court erred in awarding kit

attorneys' fees where the general contractor’s carrier had voluntary assumed its defense. The

Court noted that the carriers were not parties to the action, and that the court thus erred in

directing the contractor to reimburse Transit Authority for attorneys’ fees allegedly

owed/assumed by the contractor’s insurance carrier.

27. In Leidner v. Kevin & Stephen Corp., 26 Misc. 3d 1220(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 101

(Sup. Ct. 2009), the Court, relying upon the First Department’s ruling in Diaz v. Lexington

8 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

Exclusive Corp., 59 AD3d 341 (1st Dept. 2009), ruled that a putative indemnitee was not entitled

to ‘reimbursement’ of attorneys’ fees that had already been paid by its insurance carrier.

28. In Andrezzi v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. 503175/16, 2021 WL 5206290, at *5–6

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 09, 2021), the Court likewise ruled that an owner and general contractor

could not obtain ‘reimbursement’ of attorneys’ fees from a subcontractor where the owner and

general contractor were already being defended by the subcontractor’s insurance carrier.

29. Here, Port Morris’s carrier, NCC agreed to defend and indemnify Defendants

against this action and to afford them a full defense at no cost. Defendants' refusal to accept the

defense should not entitle them to a windfall from Port Morris.

E. Defendants Never Sought Attorney’s Fees in Their Prior Motion

30. Defendants’ motion fails for the additional reason that they are seeking sum

certain judgment on a claim they never previously pursued.

31. It is settled law that a party cannot seek to ‘enter judgment’ on a claim it did not

pursue previously.

32. In Tappan Wire & Cable, Inc. v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 555, 537

N.Y.S.2d 851 (2d Dept. 1989), the Appellate Division ruled that a although the law permits a

prevailing tenant in a landlord-tenant dispute to recoup its attorneys’ fees, the tenant there was

not entitled to summary judgment on a claim for recovery of attorneys' fees, as

it never sought summary judgment on that claim and parties did not address that issue in papers

submitted on summary judgment motion.

33. In Malcolm Shabazz Dev. Corp. v. Wu, 71 Misc. 3d 900, 907, 146 N.Y.S.3d 416,

422 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021), the Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim as damages

the attorney fees incurred because fees were not sought in plaintiff's original notice of motion.

9 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

34. Defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment here sought only

indemnification for any damages they may owe to Plaintiff. Defendants did not seek attorneys’

fees in that motion, and thus cannot seek ‘judgment’ on its alleged fees here.

F. Movants Failed to Prove the $150,000 was Related to Their Defense

35. Defendants’ motion should be denied for the additional reason that they provide

no proof as to how much of the $150,000 they demand is actually recoverable defense fees.

36. Under New York Law, which adopts the ‘American Rule, “attorney's fees are

incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award

is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule.” Hooper Associates, Ltd. v.

AGS Computers, Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989). See Baker v. Health Mgmt. Sys.,

Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 80, 88, 772 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 (2002) citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home,

Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S.Ct. 1835,

149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (quoted case omitted) West 56th Street Assoc. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins.

Co., 250 A.D.2d 109, 681 N.Y.S.2d 523 (1st Dept., 1998) (denying attorneys' fees, as it was

plaintiffs, the insureds, that cast the insurer in a defensive posture by commencing a declaratory

judgment action). Dechbery v. Cassano, 157 A.D.3d 499, 69 N.Y.S.3d 22 (1st Dept.

2018)(prevailing party may not collect attorneys' fees from the loser unless an award is

authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or by court rule.); 333 E. 49th

Partners, L.P. v. Flamm, 107 A.D.3d 584, 967 N.Y.S.2d 719 (1st Dept. 2013)(Landlord

was not entitled to recover from former tenant the attorney's fees that landlord allegedly incurred

in a holdover licensee proceeding brought solely against former subtenant).

37. Here, Defendants failed to submit any evidence that Port Morris agreed to

reimburse Defendants for attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuit of their indemnification claim

10 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

against Port Morris, and failed to advise how much of the $150,000 Defendants are demanding

was incurred in pursuit of their indemnification claim.

38. Defendants submit bills which are redacted not in part (e.g., to redact privileged

information) but are blacked out in their entirety. Port Morris – and the Court – have no way of

determining which entries pertain to defense and which pertain to Defendants’ pursuit of

indemnification. While Defendants append a spreadsheet listing total monies counsel allegedly

deducted for fees relating to Defendants’ coverage dispute with NCC, the Court has no way of

knowing whether this calculation is accurate, and moreover, even if Defendants’ calculation is

accurate, Defendants failed to deduct fees incurred in prosecuting their third-part action against

Port Morris, which fees are not recoverable under the indemnification agreement.

39. In In re New York City Asbestos Litig., 142 A.D.3d 408, 39 N.Y.S.3d 125 (1st

Dept. 2016), the First Department ruled that a general contractor was entitled

to attorneys' fees that were incurred in defending against action brought by subcontractor's

employee, although general contractor was not entitled to attorneys' fees incurred

in prosecuting indemnification claim against subcontractor.

40. In Hernandez v. Ten Ten Co., 102 A.D.3d 431, 433, 959 N.Y.S.2d 128, 131 (1st

Dept. 2013), the First Department ruled that “pursuant to the contract between Schmergel and

Roland's, Prudential is entitled to attorneys' fees. With respect to Prudential's common-

law indemnification claim against Roland's, the court should have awarded attorneys' fees for

Prudential's defense of the main action. Prudential, however, is not entitled to recover fees

incurred in prosecuting the indemnification claim”. See

Van Deventer v. CS SCF Mgmt. Ltd., 47 A.D.3d 503, 503, 850 N.Y.S.2d 73, 74 (1st Dept. 2008)

(defendants-respondents are not required to indemnify plaintiffs for costs and expenses,

11 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in plaintiffs' prosecution of its defense/indemnity

claim).

41. In Adesso Cafe Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Burton, 74 A.D.3d 1253, 1254, 904 N.Y.S.2d

490, 491 (2d Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division rejected the claim for attorneys' fees, finding

that the agreement was not unmistakably clear that the defendants agreed to indemnify the

plaintiffs for counsel fees “incurred in prosecuting this action to obtain indemnification on the

damages”

42. In Nat'l Cold Storage Co. v. Tiya Caviar Co., 52 Misc. 2d 289, 276 N.Y.S.2d 57

(Sup. Ct. 1966), the Court ruled that the costs, expenses and legal fees related to an interpleader

action were not recoverable in attorney’s fees claim. See Madison Park Dev. Assocs. LLC v.

Febbraro, 159 A.D.3d 569, 74 N.Y.S.3d 13 (1st Dept. 2018), (an indemnification clause did not

require developer to reimburse cooperative building for attorneys' fees in developer's action

asserting defamation, against the owners); Mount Vernon City Sch. Dist. v. Nova Cas. Co., 30

Misc. 3d 1233(A), 926 N.Y.S.2d 345 (Sup. Ct. 2009), aff'd, 78 A.D.3d 1028, 912 N.Y.S.2d 98

(2010), aff'd, 19 N.Y.3d 28, 968 N.E.2d 439 (2012)(Plaintiff is only entitled to the attorneys' fees

expended in finishing DJH's performance of the work under indemnity clause, and was not

entitled to recover fees incurred in prosecuting its action against DJH ); Juhasz v. Juhasz, 92

A.D.3d 1209, 1213, 939 N.Y.S.2d 675, 680 (4th Dept. 2012)(To the extent that plaintiff

sought attorneys' fees for work unrelated to the motion, we conclude that the court did not abuse

its discretion in denying that relief.); Archstone v. Tocci Bldg. Corp. of New Jersey Inc., 37

Misc. 3d 1220(A), 964 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Sup. Ct. 2012)(It is hereby ordered that the motion is

granted to the extent that the first, third and fourth causes of action, to the extent that they

seek attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution of the within action, based on the

12 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

contractual indemnification provision contained in the relevant contract, are dismissed insofar as

asserted against Tocci. It is further ordered that the cross motion is granted to the extent that the

sixth cause of action is dismissed to the extent that it seeks attorneys' fees incurred in

the prosecution of the within action based on the contractual indemnification provision contained

in the relevant contract. In all other respects, the motion and cross motion are denied).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Defendants’ motion be denied, and that the

Court grant Port Morris other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Farmingdale, New York
July 11 2020

___________________________
HOWARD B. ALTMAN

13 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

CERTIFICATION

It is hereby certified pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b that the total number of words

in the Affirmation and exclusive of the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and

signature block is 3.526.

Dated: Farmingdale, New York
July 11, 2022

________________________
Howard B. Altman

14 of 14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022
09/08/2022 04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
09/08/2022

EXHIBIT A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2020
07/11/2022
09/08/2022 05:34
04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 100
131
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2020
07/11/2022
09/08/2022

1 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2020
07/11/2022
09/08/2022 05:34
04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 100
131
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2020
07/11/2022
09/08/2022

2 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2020
07/11/2022
09/08/2022 05:34
04:01
01:57 PM INDEX NO. 155973/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 100
131
150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2020

Case Info

Judge

Lyle E. Frank Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 08, 2022

Case Filing Date

June 30, 2017

County

Parties

Beth ann Cassidy-roberts Plaintiff
HARRIS, ALTHEA WAVENEY Attorney for the Defendant
Ian Macdonald Plaintiff
James Roberts Plaintiff
KALLFA, EVIS Attorney for the Defendants
LEVINE, JARED T Attorney for the Plaintiff
Mevorach, Daniel P Attorney for the Defendants
MORGAN, DUANE RICHARD Attorney for the Plaintiff
MORGAN LEVINE DOLAN, P.C. Attorney for the Plaintiff
SPARLING, JOHN E Attorney for the Defendant
SPARLING, JOHN E Attorney for the Defendants
THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL a.k.a. THE SOCIETY OF THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL Defendant
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Defendant
ZHU, MICHAEL H. Attorney for the Plaintiff
CURTIS GILFILLAN Attorneys for Defendants
ANTHONY PAGLIUCA Attorney
JOHAN OBREGON Attorney
JOHN SPAIN Attorneys for Defendants
ALINA GREEN Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Rogers Attorney
DANIEL PASSER Attorney
CHRISTOPHER RAO Attorneys for Defendants
JOHN RIGGS Attorney
KENNETH LONDON Attorney
HOWARD ALTMAN Attorney
SHARON ANGELINO Attorney
CHRISTINE SHYU Attorneys for Defendants
John Ingold Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: Ian Macdonald, James Roberts, Beth Ann Cassidy-Roberts v. Turner Construction Company, The New York And Presbyterian Hospital a.k.a. THE SOCIETY OF THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties