Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered May 26, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against defendant Barclays Bank PLC insofar as it was based on Barclays’ obligation to cure or repurchase loans affected by EquiFirst’s breaches of representations and warranties and to dismiss plaintiff’s claim seeking indemnification, including attorneys’ fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff trustee sufficiently alleged a claim for indemnification. The indemnification provisions of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement reflect the unmistakable intent that plaintiff may recover its
We find that the Representations and Warranties Agreement is ambiguous as to whether Barclays agreed to repurchase mortgage loans containing breaches of representations and warranties by EquiFirst, the originator of the loans. Therefore, dismissal of that portion of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim based on Barclays’ obligation to cure or repurchase loans affected by EquiFirst’s breaches of representations should have been denied (see e.g. Telerep, LLC v U.S. Intl. Media, LLC, 74 AD3d 401 , 402 [1st Dept 2010]).
Concur — Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
Cases cited
- Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc. 74 NY2d 487 at 492 p. 606
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC 152 AD3d 421 p. 606
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. 140 AD3d 518 p. 606
- Telerep, LLC v. U.S. International Media, LLC 74 AD3d 401 at 402 p. 606