Legal Opinion · Dissent

CHAINANI, RAMESH L. v. LUCCHINO, RONALD A.

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

Decided April 27, 2012No. CA 11-02055Published

1DissentCarni, J.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of my colleagues that plaintiffs were not the “prevailing parties” within the meaning of the agreement granting plaintiffs two easements (2000 agreement), and I therefore dissent.

The 2000 agreement provides that, if either the grantee or the grantor “shall seek enforcement of the rights conferred pursuant to this [agreement], then the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement and indemnification for all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements expended as a result thereof.” There is no dispute that the central focus of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Rahmey v. BlumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  3. Board of Managers of 55 Walker Street Condominium v. Walker Street, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  4. Senfeld v. I.S.T.A. HoldIng Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  5. Reade v. 405 Lexington, L.L.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API