City of New York v. American Safety Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. American Safety Casualty Insurance

119 A.D.3d 407, 990 N.Y.S.2d 7

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2014

Docket12953 450214/12

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 407 (City of New York v. American Safety Casualty 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 New York v. American Safety Casualty Insurance, 119 A.D.3d 407, 990 N.Y.S.2d 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied so much of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as sought payment of fines and fees incurred by third-party defendant Pullini Subsurface Contractors, Inc., and granted defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for such fines and fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly held that the bond agreements for two permit bonds issued by defendant, as surety, in favor of third-party defendant Pullini, as principal, do not require defendant to pay for fines and fees issued by agents of the City in connection with permitted work performed by Pullini. Indeed, the language used in the bonds does not expressly or impliedly state that defendant is liable for any fines or fees incurred by Pullini. Rather, the language unambiguously provides that defendant shall “either pay to complete the work and/or obligations, including repair and maintenance thereof (the ‘Permitted Work’), or to fully complete the Permitted Work ... to be performed under [Pullini’s] permits ... if [Pullini] . . . has failed or neglected to fully perform and complete such Permitted Work.” Supreme Court correctly found that the word “obligations” does not encompass the payment of fines or fees, but rather is limited to the enumerated “repair and maintenance” work and things of a similar nature (see Popkin v Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 48 AD2d 46, 48 [1st Dept 1975]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Acosta, DeGrasse, *408 Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied so much of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as sought payment of fines and fees incurred by third-party defendant Pullini Subsurface Contractors, Inc., and granted defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for such fines and fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly held that the bond agreements for two permit bonds issued by defendant, as surety, in favor of third-party defendant Pullini, as principal, do not require defendant to pay for fines and fees issued by agents of the City in connection with permitted work performed by Pullini. Indeed, the language used in the bonds does not expressly or impliedly state that defendant is liable for any fines or fees incurred by Pullini. Rather, the language unambiguously provides that defendant shall “either pay to complete the work and/or obligations, including repair and maintenance thereof (the ‘Permitted Work’), or to fully complete the Permitted Work ... to be performed under [Pullini’s] permits ... if [Pullini] . . . has failed or neglected to fully perform and complete such Permitted Work.” Supreme Court correctly found that the word “obligations” does not encompass the payment of fines or fees, but rather is limited to the enumerated “repair and maintenance” work and things of a similar nature (see Popkin v Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 48 AD2d 46, 48 [1st Dept 1975]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Acosta, DeGrasse, *408 Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 407, 990 N.Y.S.2d 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-american-safety-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack