contractual right of indemnity" and that "[t]here can be no reasonable debate that the ADA
Action . . . constitutes an 'event connected with' the lease" pursuant to that paragraph (Landlord's
memorandum at 20). The court finds that Landlord's arguments are unavailing.
The court finds that, even without considering Tenant's opposition, summary judgment is not
warranted in favor of Landlord, as Landlord has not established that it is entitled to
indemnification of costs incurred in the federal action. Paragraph 8 of the lease requires a finding
of breach or fault by Tenant in order to trigger indemnification. There has been no finding of a
breach or fault by Tenant in federal court or state court and triable issues of fact exist as to
whether Tenant has breached any provisions of the lease or was otherwise at fault in the
underlying federal action. Under paragraph 20 of the lease, Landlord had the right to "change the
arrangement and/or location of public entrances . . . or other public parts of the building"
(Landlord's motion, exhibit E). Further, paragraph 4 of the lease provides that Landlord "shall
maintain in good working order and repair the exterior and the structural portions of the building,
including the structural portions of its demised premises" (id. at ¶ 4). The lease
further provides, as a footnote to paragraph 4, that "[e]xcept as herein provided Owner shall
make all structural repairs." Accordingly, the lease appears to place responsibility upon Landlord
for repairing the exterior step at issue in the ADA action.
Moreover, Landlord has not indicated whether any of the costs incurred in the federal action
have been or will be reimbursed by insurance. Under paragraph 8, if Landlord's expenses have