City of New York v. National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc.

137 A.D.3d 575, 27 N.Y.S.3d 537
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2016
Docket540 402808/08
StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 575 (City of New York v. National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc.) 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. National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., 137 A.D.3d 575, 27 N.Y.S.3d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank R Ñervo, J.), entered April 3, 2015, which, upon reargument, vacated the prior order and denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion and declare that, with respect to the underlying personal injury action, plaintiff (the City) is an additional insured on the policy issued to defendant St. Vincent’s Service, Inc. by defendant National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., and is entitled to a defense in the underlying action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff in the underlying action alleges that children in her care were wrongfully removed from her home. The additional insured endorsement to the policy issued to St. Vincent’s by National Catholic Risk Retention Group limits coverage for additional insureds to liability that arises out of St. Vincent’s operations. Because the underlying complaint alleges that St. Vincent’s acted wrongfully in connection with the removal, and because the underlying claims against plaintiff arise out of a placement made upon the recommendation of St. Vincent’s, plaintiff is entitled to a defense under the policy (see Federal Ins. Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 40 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Federal Insurance v. Kozlowski
18 A.D.3d 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 575, 27 N.Y.S.3d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-national-catholic-risk-retention-group-inc-nyappdiv-2016.