D'Ambrosio v. Farm Family Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Ambrosio v. Farm Family Insurance

264 A.D.2d 801, 695 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9414

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 801 (D'Ambrosio v. Farm Family 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

D'Ambrosio v. Farm Family Insurance, 264 A.D.2d 801, 695 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action entitled Durham v DAmbrosio, pending in Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, under Case No. 000732/96, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered December 22, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff failed to cooperate with the defendant’s investigation of the underlying claim (see generally, Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168; see, Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers v Keller, 243 AD2d 547), and whether the claimant was an employee or independent contractor of the plaintiff (see, Mason v Spendiff, 238 AD2d 780). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action entitled Durham v DAmbrosio, pending in Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, under Case No. 000732/96, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered December 22, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff failed to cooperate with the defendant’s investigation of the underlying claim (see generally, Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168; see, Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers v Keller, 243 AD2d 547), and whether the claimant was an employee or independent contractor of the plaintiff (see, Mason v Spendiff, 238 AD2d 780). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 801, 695 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dambrosio-v-farm-family-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack