Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 5, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion to renew and thereupon reinstated its previously dismissed claim for indemnification with respect to the pending personal injury claims and with respect to later-filed personal injury claims, but held that defendant has no duty to reimburse defense costs on an ongoing basis, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from order, same court and Justice, entered April 10, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
Defendant is not an insurer, and the contract of indemnity pursuant to which it is bound, strictly construed (see Hooper Assoc., Ltd. v AGS Computers, Inc., 74 NY2d 487, 491-492 [1989]; Matter of Heimbach v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 75 NY2d 387, 392 [1990]), does not impose upon it a defense obligation comparable in breadth to that ordinarily borne by an
We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
