Eastman Kodak Co. v. Prometheus Funding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Prometheus Funding Corp.

283 A.D.2d 216, 724 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810

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

DecidedMay 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 216 (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Prometheus Funding Corp.) 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

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Prometheus Funding Corp., 283 A.D.2d 216, 724 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 5, 2000, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 28, 2000, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 as time-barred, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Defendant is sued as the successor in interest to Frank B. Hall & Co., an insurance broker through which plaintiff purchased numerous excess and/or umbrella liability policies. Plaintiff alleges that Frank B. Hall mishandled claims made by it under the subject policies and that coverage was consequently denied, leaving plaintiff exposed to substantial liability. We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs action is time-barred.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the continuous representation doctrine is not applicable to insurance brokers and they are not professionals within the purview of CPLR 214 (6) (see, [217]*217Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Andrias, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 5, 2000, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 28, 2000, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 as time-barred, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Defendant is sued as the successor in interest to Frank B. Hall & Co., an insurance broker through which plaintiff purchased numerous excess and/or umbrella liability policies. Plaintiff alleges that Frank B. Hall mishandled claims made by it under the subject policies and that coverage was consequently denied, leaving plaintiff exposed to substantial liability. We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs action is time-barred.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the continuous representation doctrine is not applicable to insurance brokers and they are not professionals within the purview of CPLR 214 (6) (see, [217]*217Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Andrias, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 216, 724 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastman-kodak-co-v-prometheus-funding-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack