American States Insurance v. Paris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American States Insurance v. Paris

265 A.D.2d 805, 695 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9832

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 805 (American States Insurance v. Paris) 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 States Insurance v. Paris, 265 A.D.2d 805, 695 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memo-

randum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiff insurer for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant Carl N. Reiss in the underlying personal injury action commenced against him by Steven M. Paris and Billie Jo Paris (defendants). The policy was limited to insurance for business conduct, and plaintiff met its initial burden by establishing that the construction of the residence was a nonbusiness venture for Reiss. Defendants came forward, however, with proof in admissible form that Reiss was constructing the residence through his business and had employed Steven Paris to work at the site, thereby raising an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memo-

randum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiff insurer for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant Carl N. Reiss in the underlying personal injury action commenced against him by Steven M. Paris and Billie Jo Paris (defendants). The policy was limited to insurance for business conduct, and plaintiff met its initial burden by establishing that the construction of the residence was a nonbusiness venture for Reiss. Defendants came forward, however, with proof in admissible form that Reiss was constructing the residence through his business and had employed Steven Paris to work at the site, thereby raising an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 805, 695 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-states-insurance-v-paris-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack