Allstate Insurance v. Descorbeth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Descorbeth

270 A.D.2d 437, 705 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3237

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 437 (Allstate Insurance v. Descorbeth) 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

Allstate Insurance v. Descorbeth, 270 A.D.2d 437, 705 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has no duty to defend and indemnify the defendants Yves Descorbeth and Yanick Requiere in an action commenced by the defendant Rose Marie Roger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Margareth D. Gourgue, a/k/a Margareth Dure against the defendants Yves Descorbeth and Yanick Requiere in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 15847/98, [438]*438the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), entered July 28, 1999, as, upon reargument, denied its cross motion for summary judgment against the defendant Rose Marie Roger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Margareth D. Gourgue, a/k/a Margareth Dure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. There are issues of fact as to the applicability of the “business activities” exclusion in the homeowners’ policy at issue (see, Hanover Ins. Co. v Cowan, 172 AD2d 490; Allstate Ins. Co. v Noorhassan, 158 AD2d 638).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 the plaintiff has no duty to defend and indemnify the defendants Yves Descorbeth and Yanick Requiere in an action commenced by the defendant Rose Marie Roger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Margareth D. Gourgue, a/k/a Margareth Dure against the defendants Yves Descorbeth and Yanick Requiere in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 15847/98, [438]*438the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), entered July 28, 1999, as, upon reargument, denied its cross motion for summary judgment against the defendant Rose Marie Roger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Margareth D. Gourgue, a/k/a Margareth Dure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. There are issues of fact as to the applicability of the “business activities” exclusion in the homeowners’ policy at issue (see, Hanover Ins. Co. v Cowan, 172 AD2d 490; Allstate Ins. Co. v Noorhassan, 158 AD2d 638).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 437, 705 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-descorbeth-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack