Opinion
16718 Index No. 650109/11 Case Nos. 2022–01337, 2022–02494
11-22-2022
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. CONSTRUCTAMAX, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Georgoulis PLLC, New York (James G. Lainas of counsel), for appellants. Torre, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho (Brian E. Gunther of counsel), for respondents.
Georgoulis PLLC, New York (James G. Lainas of counsel), for appellants.
Torre, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho (Brian E. Gunther of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Oing, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered September 16, 2021, awarding plaintiff damages in the amount of $35,635,479.10, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Upon granting plaintiffs leave to reargue their motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim, Supreme Court correctly determined that defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the parties had reached an accord and satisfaction (see generally Denburg v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 82 N.Y.2d 375, 383, 604 N.Y.S.2d 900, 624 N.E.2d 995 [1993] ). The integration clause in the parties’ Completion Agreement barred any evidence of a prior accord to limit defendants’ liability under the parties’ general indemnification agreement (GIA) (see Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 89 N.Y.2d 594, 599–600, 657 N.Y.S.2d 385, 679 N.E.2d 624 [1997] ), and defendants failed to demonstrate that the parties reached such an agreement after execution of the Completion Agreement. The post-contract emails were insufficient to show an accord, as the emails did not reference defendants’ liability under the GIA or evince a meeting of the minds on material terms (see Silber v. New York Life Ins. Co., 92 A.D.3d 436, 439, 938 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2012] ).