Opinion
1774
October 7, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered November 6, 2002, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) and (7) and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to replead pursuant to CPLR 3211(e), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Julie E. Steiner, for plaintiff-appellant.
John Patrick Deveney, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, JJ.
In this action for reimbursement of the costs of legal defense pursuant to an agreement between the parties' subsidiaries, the motion court correctly found that, construing the governing indemnification provision strictly (see Dunham v. Weissman, 281 A.D.2d 220, 222, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 96 N.Y.2d 851), the products liability action for which plaintiff sought defense costs did not fall within such provision. We further note that plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the rights of its subsidiary (see Alexander Alexander of New York v. Fritzen, 114 A.D.2d 814, 815, affd 68 N.Y.2d 968) since, when the governing agreement was amended to extend certain indemnification rights to plaintiff, the defense provision (Art. 10.06) was not among them.
Leave to replead was properly denied ( see Lesesne v. Lesesne, 292 A.D.2d 507, 509), a conclusion supported by appellant's failure to include in the record the papers submitted in support of such request ( see Cole v. Irizarry, 307 A.D.2d 890, 2003 N.Y. App. Div LEXIS 9056, *3-*4).
We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.