Allen v. Thimiana Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allen v. Thimiana Restaurant Corp.

202 A.D.2d 381, 609 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1913

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 381 (Allen v. Thimiana Restaurant Corp.) 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

Allen v. Thimiana Restaurant Corp., 202 A.D.2d 381, 609 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that certain claims against the defendant Thimiana Restaurant Corp. constitute “multiple occurrences” within the meaning of an insurance policy issued by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered December 6, 1991, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and the defendants Brian Cohen and Burt Price separately appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment. The appeal by Brian Cohen and Burt Price has been withdrawn.

[382]*382Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, with costs to the respondents payable by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company.

The plaintiffs’ complaint presents a justiciable controversy as to whether the alleged incidents of food poisoning constituted "multiple occurrences” under the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint (see, CPLR 3001). Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that certain claims against the defendant Thimiana Restaurant Corp. constitute “multiple occurrences” within the meaning of an insurance policy issued by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered December 6, 1991, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and the defendants Brian Cohen and Burt Price separately appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment. The appeal by Brian Cohen and Burt Price has been withdrawn.

[382]*382Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, with costs to the respondents payable by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company.

The plaintiffs’ complaint presents a justiciable controversy as to whether the alleged incidents of food poisoning constituted "multiple occurrences” under the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint (see, CPLR 3001). Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 381, 609 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-thimiana-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-1994.