N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Business Corporation / ARTICLE Directors and Officers
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Business Corporation Law § 722 (2026)

Authorization for indemnification of directors and officers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 722. Authorization for indemnification of directors and officers.
  (a) A corporation may indemnify any person made, or threatened to be
made, a party to an action or proceeding (other than one by or in the
right of the corporation to procure a judgment in its favor), whether
civil or criminal, including an action by or in the right of any other
corporation of any type or kind, domestic or foreign, or any
partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan or other
enterprise, which any director or officer of the corporation served in
any capacity at the request of the corporation, by reason of the fact
that he, his testator or intestate, was a director or officer of the
corporation, or served such other corporation, partnership, joint
venture, trust, employee benefit plan or other enterprise in any
capacity, against judgments, fines, amounts paid in settlement and
reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees actually and necessarily
incurred as a result of such action or proceeding, or any appeal
therein, if such director or officer acted, in good faith, for a purpose
which he reasonably believed to be in, or, in the case of service for
any other corporation or any partnership, joint venture, trust, employee
benefit plan or other enterprise, not opposed to, the best interests of
the corporation and, in criminal actions or proceedings, in addition,
had no reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful.
  (b) The termination of any such civil or criminal action or proceeding
by judgment, settlement, conviction or upon a plea of nolo contendere,
or its equivalent, shall not in itself create a presumption that any
such director or officer did not act, in good faith, for a purpose which
he reasonably believed to be in, or, in the case of service for any
other corporation or any partnership, joint venture, trust, employee
benefit plan or other enterprise, not opposed to, the best interests of
the corporation or that he had reasonable cause to believe that his
conduct was unlawful.
  (c) A corporation may indemnify any person made, or threatened to be
made, a party to an action by or in the right of the corporation to
procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that he, his
testator or intestate, is or was a director or officer of the
corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a
director or officer of any other corporation of any type or kind,
domestic or foreign, of any partnership, joint venture, trust, employee
benefit plan or other enterprise, against amounts paid in settlement and
reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, actually and necessarily
incurred by him in connection with the defense or settlement of such
action, or in connection with an appeal therein, if such director or
officer acted, in good faith, for a purpose which he reasonably believed
to be in, or, in the case of service for any other corporation or any
partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan or other
enterprise, not opposed to, the best interests of the corporation,
except that no indemnification under this paragraph shall be made in
respect of (1) a threatened action, or a pending action which is settled
or otherwise disposed of, or (2) any claim, issue or matter as to which
such person shall have been adjudged to be liable to the corporation,
unless and only to the extent that the court in which the action was
brought, or, if no action was brought, any court of competent
jurisdiction, determines upon application that, in view of all the
circumstances of the case, the person is fairly and reasonably entitled
to indemnity for such portion of the settlement amount and expenses as
the court deems proper.
  (d) For the purpose of this section, a corporation shall be deemed to
have requested a person to serve an employee benefit plan where the
performance by such person of his duties to the corporation also imposes
duties on, or otherwise involves services by, such person to the plan or
participants or beneficiaries of the plan; excise taxes assessed on a
person with respect to an employee benefit plan pursuant to applicable
law shall be considered fines; and action taken or omitted by a person
with respect to an employee benefit plan in the performance of such
person's duties for a purpose reasonably believed by such person to be
in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan shall
be deemed to be for a purpose which is not opposed to the best interests
of the corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1969–2020 · leading case: Biondi v. Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 731 N.E.2d 577 (NY 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Biondi v. Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 731 N.E.2d 577 (NY 2000). · cites it 4× “Business Corporation Law § 722 (a) and (c) allow corporations to indemnify directors against third-party actions and derivative suits, respectively.”
Bansbach v. Zinn, 801 N.E.2d 395 (NY 2003). · cites it 2× “the best interests of the corporation and, in criminal actions or proceedings, in addition, had no reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful” (Business Corporation Law § 722 [a]). Indemnification is prohibited, however, if a judgment or other final adjudication…”
Marincovich v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 41 A.D.3d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 4× “On February 11, 2000, plaintiffs, as then-directors of defendant, each individually signed a separate “Agreement to Indemnify” (hereinafter the indemnity agreements), obligating defendant to indemnify them for expenses beyond those provided by both the corporate bylaws or…”
Baker v. Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1099 (NY 2002). “So was the New York State Legislature when it explicitly limited indemnification to “reasonable expenses * * * actually and necessarily incurred” (Business Corporation Law § 722 [a]; emphasis added).”
Tulino v. Tulino, 2017 NY Slip Op 1589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 6× “*757 Article 7 of the Business Corporation Law sets forth the statutory framework for a corporation to provide indemnification for, or advancement of, expenses incurred in litigation to officers and directors (see Business Corporation Law § 721 et seq.). Where a corporation does…”
Hargett v. Town of Ticonderoga, 31 Misc. 3d 443 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “( 98 NY2d 80 [2002]), the Court of Appeals considered the “fees on fees” issue in the context of a provision in Business Corporation Law § 723 (a) which mandates the indemnification of an officer or director who successfully defends an action brought against him because of his…”
Reyes v. Sequeira, 64 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “Defendant answered the action and asserted counterclaims seeking (1) damages for breach of fiduciary duty and under Business Corporation Law §§ 722, 723 and 724, (2) declarations that defendant owned two thirds of the shares of SAR because plaintiff agreed to transfer one sixth…”
Federico v. Brancato, 2020 NY Slip Op 07036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 3× “Article 7 of the Business Corporation Law sets forth the statutory framework for a corporation to provide indemnification for expenses incurred in litigation to officers and directors ( see Business Corporation Law § 721 et seq. ).”
Mercado v. COES FX, Inc., 12 Misc. 3d 766 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “Discussion Mercado bases his claim for indemnification on Business Corporation Law §§ 722 to 724 since there is no corporate bylaw or agreement which would entitle him to indemnification by agreement.”
Donovan v. Rothman, 253 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “Finally, Business Corporation Law § 722 (a) and (b) provide for indemnification of corporate officers and directors for expenses incurred in connection with litigation, once it has been concluded, where they have acted in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation.”
Pilipiak v. Keyes, 286 A.D.2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “While the statute makes no presumption that the judgment proves that the director or officer acted wrongfully toward the corporation, reimbursement would be precluded as a matter of law, if the judg *232 ment or conviction necessarily includes a finding of deliberate dishonesty…”
Kaufman v. CBS Inc., 135 Misc. 2d 64 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1987). “(Business Corporation Law § 722 [a]; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.