City of Mount Vernon v. Lexington Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Mount Vernon v. Lexington Insurance

240 A.D.2d 357, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791

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

DecidedJune 2, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 357 (City of Mount Vernon v. Lexington 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

City of Mount Vernon v. Lexington Insurance, 240 A.D.2d 357, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant has a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in consolidated underlying negligence actions under a policy of insurance issued by it, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered June 12, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judg[358]*358ment to the extent of declaring that the defendant was obligated to indemnify the plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Since the commencement of the instant declaratory judgment action, this Court has reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 3, 1996, in the underlying personal injury actions which denied the City of Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment and we granted summary judgment to the City of Mount Vernon dismissing the complaints and all cross claims (Powell v City of Mount Vernon, 228 AD2d 572). Further, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal (Powell v City of Mount Vernon, 89 NY2d 807). Consequently, any determination by this Court will not immediately affect the rights of the parties with respect to this action. The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Friedmann, 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 defendant has a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in consolidated underlying negligence actions under a policy of insurance issued by it, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered June 12, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judg[358]*358ment to the extent of declaring that the defendant was obligated to indemnify the plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Since the commencement of the instant declaratory judgment action, this Court has reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 3, 1996, in the underlying personal injury actions which denied the City of Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment and we granted summary judgment to the City of Mount Vernon dismissing the complaints and all cross claims (Powell v City of Mount Vernon, 228 AD2d 572). Further, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal (Powell v City of Mount Vernon, 89 NY2d 807). Consequently, any determination by this Court will not immediately affect the rights of the parties with respect to this action. The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 357, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-mount-vernon-v-lexington-insurance-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack