American Bridge Co. v. Acceptance Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Bridge Co. v. Acceptance Insurance

8 A.D.3d 217, 777 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7457

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 217 (American Bridge Co. v. Acceptance 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

American Bridge Co. v. Acceptance Insurance, 8 A.D.3d 217, 777 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to pay defense and indemnification costs to the plaintiffs in connection with the settlement of an action entitled Prokop v Perini Corp., pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 2457/99, the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 26, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment against the defendant third-party plaintiff on the cause of action for reimbursement of their contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, and denied with leave to renew that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment against the defendant third-party plaintiff on the cause of action for reimbursement of certain defense costs in the underlying action, and the defendant third-party plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

[218]*218Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

This matter is before us for the second time (see American Bridge Co. v Acceptance Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 634 [2002]). Now, as then, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue of indemnification cannot be resolved as a matter of law, as neither the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant, in their motion, nor the defendant third-party plaintiff, in its cross motion, established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to pay defense and indemnification costs to the plaintiffs in connection with the settlement of an action entitled Prokop v Perini Corp., pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 2457/99, the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 26, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment against the defendant third-party plaintiff on the cause of action for reimbursement of their contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, and denied with leave to renew that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment against the defendant third-party plaintiff on the cause of action for reimbursement of certain defense costs in the underlying action, and the defendant third-party plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

[218]*218Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

This matter is before us for the second time (see American Bridge Co. v Acceptance Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 634 [2002]). Now, as then, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue of indemnification cannot be resolved as a matter of law, as neither the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant, in their motion, nor the defendant third-party plaintiff, in its cross motion, established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 217, 777 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-bridge-co-v-acceptance-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack