City of New York v. New York Marine & General Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. New York Marine & General Insurance

122 A.D.3d 513, 997 N.Y.S.2d 378

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2014

Docket13552 450008/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 513 (City of New York v. New York Marine & General 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. New York Marine & General Insurance, 122 A.D.3d 513, 997 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, declared that defendant New York Marine and General Insurance Company (Marine) is obligated to defend plaintiff City of New York in an underlying personal injury action, and denied Marine’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The underlying complaint alleged that the plaintiff therein tripped and fell on a tree stump. It was further alleged that the negligence of defendant Britt Realty Development Corp. *514 contributed to the accident by permitting construction debris on the sidewalk, or otherwise creating an obstruction. Since these allegations are potentially covered by the Marine policy issued to Britt, in which the City was named as an additional insured “only with respect to operations performed by or on behalf of [Britt] for which the [City] has issued a permit,” Marine is obligated to defend the City in the underlying action (cf. QBE Ins. Corp. v Jinx-Proof Inc., 102 AD3d 508, 509-510 [1st Dept 2013], affd 22 NY3d 1105 [2014]).

Certainly, since, at this juncture, the claims at issue may have arisen from a covered event, namely Britt’s management of its construction activities, Marine is obligated to provide the City a defense.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Andrias, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, declared that defendant New York Marine and General Insurance Company (Marine) is obligated to defend plaintiff City of New York in an underlying personal injury action, and denied Marine’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The underlying complaint alleged that the plaintiff therein tripped and fell on a tree stump. It was further alleged that the negligence of defendant Britt Realty Development Corp. *514 contributed to the accident by permitting construction debris on the sidewalk, or otherwise creating an obstruction. Since these allegations are potentially covered by the Marine policy issued to Britt, in which the City was named as an additional insured “only with respect to operations performed by or on behalf of [Britt] for which the [City] has issued a permit,” Marine is obligated to defend the City in the underlying action (cf. QBE Ins. Corp. v Jinx-Proof Inc., 102 AD3d 508, 509-510 [1st Dept 2013], affd 22 NY3d 1105 [2014]).

Certainly, since, at this juncture, the claims at issue may have arisen from a covered event, namely Britt’s management of its construction activities, Marine is obligated to provide the City a defense.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Andrias, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 513, 997 N.Y.S.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-new-york-marine-general-insurance-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack