Fremont Realty, Inc. v. P & N Iron Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fremont Realty, Inc. v. P & N Iron Works, Inc.

39 A.D.3d 586, 831 N.Y.S.2d 920, 835 N.Y.S.2d 273

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

DecidedApril 10, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 586 (Fremont Realty, Inc. v. P & N Iron Works, 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

Fremont Realty, Inc. v. P & N Iron Works, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 586, 831 N.Y.S.2d 920, 835 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 9, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. (hereinafter Zurich), which had issued a particular insurance policy to the plaintiff, demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing, inter alia, that it had no duty to advise the plaintiff to obtain certain additional insurance coverage (see Chaim v Benedict, 216 AD2d 347 [1995]; Erwig v Cook Agency, 173 AD2d 439 [1991]). Since, in response to this showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Zurich’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 9, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. (hereinafter Zurich), which had issued a particular insurance policy to the plaintiff, demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing, inter alia, that it had no duty to advise the plaintiff to obtain certain additional insurance coverage (see Chaim v Benedict, 216 AD2d 347 [1995]; Erwig v Cook Agency, 173 AD2d 439 [1991]). Since, in response to this showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Zurich’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 586, 831 N.Y.S.2d 920, 835 N.Y.S.2d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fremont-realty-inc-v-p-n-iron-works-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack