Foddrell v. Utica First Ins. Co.
This text of Foddrell v. Utica First Ins. Co. (Foddrell v. Utica First Ins. Co.) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Foddrell v Utica First Ins. Co.
2026 NY Slip Op 03294
May 27, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Thomas Foddrell, appellant,
v
Utica First Insurance Company, respondent (and a third-party action).
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 27, 2026
2023-05288, 2023-05291, (Index No. 714748/20)
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Lara J. Genovesi
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Mallilo & Grossman (Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, NY [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel), for appellant.
Farber Brocks & Zane LLP, Garden City, NY (Lester Chanin of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) to recover the amount of an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant's insured, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J), entered May 11, 2023, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered June 5, 2023. The judgment, upon the decision, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
In 2006, the plaintiff commenced an action against Joney & Rana Construction Corp. (hereinafter J & R) and another entity to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in a construction-related accident (hereinafter the underlying action). At the time of the accident, J & R was insured by the defendant, Utica First Insurance Company (hereinafter Utica). Utica retained a law firm to represent J & R in the underlying action and hired an investigator to contact Gardeep Singh, J & R's principal.
As alleged by Utica, Singh did not appear for two court-ordered depositions in the fall of 2008, despite his attorney's attempts to notify him. In January 2009, Utica retained the same investigator to inform Singh that a deposition was scheduled for April 13, 2009. According to J & R's attorney, on February 15, 2009, Singh answered a call from J & R's attorney and was informed that the plaintiff had moved to strike J & R's answer and that Singh was required to appear for a deposition. On April 3, 2009, Utica requested that the investigator hand-deliver a letter to Singh informing him that it would refuse to indemnify J & R if he did not attend the deposition. According to a letter addressed to J & R's attorney, the investigator spoke with Singh at his home on April 8, [*2]2009, and advised him of the time and location of the deposition. According to J & R's attorney, on April 10, 2009, Singh answered a call from J & R's attorney and told the attorney he would attend the deposition. However, Singh did not attend the deposition. In a letter dated April 15, 2009, Utica informed Singh that it would not indemnify J & R in the underlying action.
Thereafter, in an order dated August 4, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the motion of J & R's attorney to be relieved as counsel for J & R, and in another order dated August 4, 2009, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike J & R's answer to the extent of directing that J & R's answer would be stricken unless J & R appeared for a deposition by December 4, 2009. After J & R failed to appear for a deposition by December 4, 2009, the court issued an order dated September 30, 2010, inter alia, striking J & R's answer. After an inquest on the issue of damages, the court entered a judgment in the underlying action in favor of the plaintiff and against J & R and another entity in the total sum of $673,422.71.
In December 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) to recover the amount of the unsatisfied judgment from Utica. In an order entered March 28, 2017, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied Utica's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In a decision and order dated December 18, 2019, this Court affirmed so much of the order entered March 28, 2017, as denied Utica's motion (see Foddrell v Utica First Ins. Co., 178 AD3d 901). After a nonjury trial, on June 5, 2023, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of Utica and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, this Court's decision and order on the prior appeal did not bar the Supreme Court, at trial, from considering the issue of whether J & R's conduct amounted to willful and avowed obstruction. The decision and order did not determine that issue on the merits (see J.C. Tarr, Q.P.R.T. v Delsener, 70 AD3d 774, 778).
"'In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses'" (Allstate Ins. Co. v Kapeleris, 235 AD3d 708, 708 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Gelaj v Gelaj, 216 AD3d 1082, 1083; see O'Brien v Dalessandro, 43 AD3d 1123, 1123).
Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) "'grants an injured party a right to sue the tortfeasor's insurer, but only under limited circumstances—the injured party must first obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, serve the insurance company with a copy of the judgment and await payment for 30 days'" (DeLuca v RLI Ins. Co., 187 AD3d 709, 711, quoting Lang v Hanover Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 350, 354). "The effect of the statute is 'to give to the injured claimant a cause of action against an insurer for the same relief that would be due to a . . . principal seeking indemnity and reimbursement after the judgment had been satisfied'" (id., quoting Coleman v New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 247 NY 271, 275). "'Once the statutory prerequisites are met, the injured party steps into the shoes of the tortfeasor and can assert any right of the tortfeasor-insured against the insurance company'" (id., quoting Lang v Hanover Ins. Co., 3 NY3d at 355).
"Where an insured's failure or refusal to cooperate is asserted by an insurer as a defense in an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2), 'the burden shall be upon the insurer to prove such alleged failure or refusal to cooperate'" (id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Foddrell v. Utica First Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foddrell-v-utica-first-ins-co-nyappdiv-2026.