Great American Insurance Companies v. Bearcat Financial Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Great American Insurance Companies v. Bearcat Financial Services, Inc.

90 A.D.3d 533, 934 N.Y.2d 413

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 533 (Great American Insurance Companies v. Bearcat Financial Services, 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

Great American Insurance Companies v. Bearcat Financial Services, Inc., 90 A.D.3d 533, 934 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Because the first-party complaint alleges that Hayes is liable based only on his own wrongdoing, his third-party claim that he is entitled to common-law indemnification from Dresdner does not state a cause of action (Mathis v Central Park Conservancy, 251 AD2d 171, 172 [1998]). Accordingly, the third-party complaint was properly dismissed.

Because the third-party claim was plainly defective, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that it was frivolous and imposing sanctions and costs (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443 [2008]).

We have considered Hayes’s remaining contentions and find [534]*534them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Román, JJ.

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

Because the first-party complaint alleges that Hayes is liable based only on his own wrongdoing, his third-party claim that he is entitled to common-law indemnification from Dresdner does not state a cause of action (Mathis v Central Park Conservancy, 251 AD2d 171, 172 [1998]). Accordingly, the third-party complaint was properly dismissed.

Because the third-party claim was plainly defective, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that it was frivolous and imposing sanctions and costs (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443 [2008]).

We have considered Hayes’s remaining contentions and find [534]*534them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 533, 934 N.Y.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-american-insurance-companies-v-bearcat-financial-services-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack