The IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract and, alternatively, reformation, was precluded by the presence of triable issues of material fact. The parties' conflicting affidavits raised issues as to whether the Guaranty Agreement actually represented the parties' intent and understanding with respect to any indemnity with respect to the "Break Funding/Early Termination Option", and whether that indemnity was omitted as the result of mutual mistake ( see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573; Consolidated Edison Co. v General Acc. Ins. Co., 204 A.D.2d 164). The IAS Court properly declined to dismiss the third cause of action seeking recovery of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in seeking to enforce defendant's alleged indemnity obligation under the Break Funding/Early Termination Option, which were expressly provided for in section 1 (f) of the parties' Guaranty Agreement ( Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 5; Breed, Abbott Morgan v Hulko, 139 A.D.2d 71, 73, affd 74 N.Y.2d 686). Defendant's counterclaim seeking attorneys' fees for alleged "baseless" litigation was properly dismissed as there is no legal authority for such relief ( Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, supra; Curiano v Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113, 116), and, in any event, this litigation cannot be deemed baseless.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.