Friedlander Organization, LLC v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

131 A.D.3d 1005, 16 N.Y.S.3d 467
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2015
Docket2014-03029
StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1005 (Friedlander Organization, LLC v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, 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
Friedlander Organization, LLC v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., 131 A.D.3d 1005, 16 N.Y.S.3d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover the amount of an unsatisfied judgment against parties insured by Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (Action No. 1), and a related action, inter alia, to rescind a professional liability insurance policy (Action No. 2), Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated February 6, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 1 and on its first three causes of action in Action No. 2, and granted the cross motion of Friedlander Organization, LLC, to compel it to produce an additional witness for a deposition.

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

The appellant, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (hereinafter Liberty), failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint in Action No. 1 and on its first three causes of action in Action No. 2. Accordingly, its motion for that relief was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the respondent’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Contrary to Liberty’s contention, the Supreme Court properly *1006 granted the respondent’s cross motion to compel it to produce an additional witness for a deposition.

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 1005, 16 N.Y.S.3d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedlander-organization-llc-v-liberty-insurance-underwriters-inc-nyappdiv-2015.