Employers Insurance v. Meli & Borelli Associates, Inc.

33 A.D.3d 958, 822 N.Y.S.2d 732

This text of 33 A.D.3d 958 (Employers Insurance v. Meli & Borelli Associates, 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
Employers Insurance v. Meli & Borelli Associates, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 958, 822 N.Y.S.2d 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries entitled Dean v Crown Constr. Corp., commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 15633/94, the defendant Cigna Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to restore the action and for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action against it pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420, and the defendants Crown Partition, Inc., and Royal Insurance Company separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that the branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action (see Travis v Cuff, 28 AD3d 749 [2006]; Islam v Katz Realty Co., 296 AD2d 566 [2002]). Further, the court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 against the defendant Cigna Corp. (see Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 273 AD2d 458 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Travis v. Cuff
28 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp.
273 A.D.2d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Islam v. Nathan Katz Realty Co.
296 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 958, 822 N.Y.S.2d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/employers-insurance-v-meli-borelli-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2006.