American Safety Casualty Insurance v. New York City School Construction Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Safety Casualty Insurance v. New York City School Construction Authority

16 A.D.3d 138, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2176

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 138 (American Safety Casualty Insurance v. New York City School Construction Authority) 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 Safety Casualty Insurance v. New York City School Construction Authority, 16 A.D.3d 138, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered November 19, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on liability, directed an assessment of damages, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim was timely under the circumstances [139]*139(see Koren-DiResta Constr. Co. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 293 AD2d 189 [2002]), and the court correctly interpreted the contract provisions at issue (see Isaacs v Westchester Wood Works, 278 AD2d 184 [2000]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered November 19, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on liability, directed an assessment of damages, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim was timely under the circumstances [139]*139(see Koren-DiResta Constr. Co. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 293 AD2d 189 [2002]), and the court correctly interpreted the contract provisions at issue (see Isaacs v Westchester Wood Works, 278 AD2d 184 [2000]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 138, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-safety-casualty-insurance-v-new-york-city-school-construction-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack