Blue Ridge Insurance v. Whirlpool Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blue Ridge Insurance v. Whirlpool Corp.

302 A.D.2d 418, 754 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 418 (Blue Ridge Insurance v. Whirlpool 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

Blue Ridge Insurance v. Whirlpool Corp., 302 A.D.2d 418, 754 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a subrogation action to recover for property damage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated February 6, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, or to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the drastic remedy of dismissal based upon spoliation of evidence was unwarranted (see Chiu Ping Chung v Caravan Coach Co., 285 AD2d 621). Moreover, there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In a subrogation action to recover for property damage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated February 6, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, or to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the drastic remedy of dismissal based upon spoliation of evidence was unwarranted (see Chiu Ping Chung v Caravan Coach Co., 285 AD2d 621). Moreover, there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 418, 754 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-ridge-insurance-v-whirlpool-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack