We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In Ostad v. Nehmadi, No. 6504602010 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., Apr. 11, 2011) (“Ostad”), Justice Bernard J. Fried reiterated the rule that a notice of pendency cannot be based on a claim asserting an interest in personal property, even where that personal property is an interest in a partnership whose sole asset is real property
In Gotham Partners, LP v High River, LP, Index No 60258204 (App Div 1st Dep't July 20, 2010) ("Gotham Partners"), Judge Saxe held that the indemnification clause in a purchase contract did not permit a seller to recover attorneys' fees from a buyer after the seller successfully sued for breach of contract, concluding that the language of the indemnification clause fell short of satisfying the exacting "unmistakable intent" standard set forth by the Court of Appeals in Hooper Assoc
