Opinion
January 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"When the provisions of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the interpretation thereof is a question of law and effect must be given to the parties' expressed intent" ( Campagna v. Braun, 124 A.D.2d 532, 533; Singh v. Dyckman, 202 A.D.2d 412, 413; see also, Locascio v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 198 A.D.2d 403). This rule of law applies to indemnity contracts ( see generally, Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, 88 N.Y.2d 437).
Since the indemnity agreement at issue here was unambiguous, summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of that agreement was properly granted ( see, e.g., Costa v. District Nursing Assn., 175 A.D.2d 274; Austin v. Canbar Assocs., 175 A.D.2d 195).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.