157 East 72nd Street Condominium v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

157 East 72nd Street Condominium v. Utica Mutual Insurance

10 A.D.3d 580, 781 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11219

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 580 (157 East 72nd Street Condominium v. Utica Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

157 East 72nd Street Condominium v. Utica Mutual Insurance, 10 A.D.3d 580, 781 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment insofar as to declare that defendant insurer is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying liability action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action against plaintiffs present a reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy issued by defendant, defendant is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action (see Frontier Insulation Contrs., Inc. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 91 NY2d 169, 175 [1997]; Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78 NY2d 61, 65-66 [1991]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment insofar as to declare that defendant insurer is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying liability action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action against plaintiffs present a reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy issued by defendant, defendant is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action (see Frontier Insulation Contrs., Inc. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 91 NY2d 169, 175 [1997]; Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78 NY2d 61, 65-66 [1991]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 580, 781 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/157-east-72nd-street-condominium-v-utica-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack