Gristede's Operating Corp. v. Axis Specialty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gristede's Operating Corp. v. Axis Specialty Insurance

60 A.D.3d 460, 874 N.Y.S.2d 454

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 460 (Gristede's Operating Corp. v. Axis Specialty Insurance) 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

Gristede's Operating Corp. v. Axis Specialty Insurance, 60 A.D.3d 460, 874 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[461]*461Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered December 19, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that defendant is not obligated to indemnify plaintiff against any claims made in the underlying class action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While “an insurer’s duty to defend and to pay defense costs under liability insurance policies must be construed broadly in favor of the policyholder” (Federal Ins. Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 41 [2005] [citation omitted]), the “existence of the duty is dependent upon whether sufficient facts are stated so as to invoke coverage under the policy” (American Home Assur. Co. v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 66 AD2d 269, 278 [1979]). The policy here did not cover plaintiff against the claims alleged in the underlying class action, and defendant thus had no duty to advance defense costs (see Société Générale v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 1 AD 3d 164 [2003]). Rejection of plaintiffs’ cause of action for a declaration required that the court declare in favor of defendant, and we modify accordingly (Decana Inc. v Contogouris, 55 AD3d 325, 326 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

[461]*461Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered December 19, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that defendant is not obligated to indemnify plaintiff against any claims made in the underlying class action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While “an insurer’s duty to defend and to pay defense costs under liability insurance policies must be construed broadly in favor of the policyholder” (Federal Ins. Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 41 [2005] [citation omitted]), the “existence of the duty is dependent upon whether sufficient facts are stated so as to invoke coverage under the policy” (American Home Assur. Co. v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 66 AD2d 269, 278 [1979]). The policy here did not cover plaintiff against the claims alleged in the underlying class action, and defendant thus had no duty to advance defense costs (see Société Générale v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 1 AD 3d 164 [2003]). Rejection of plaintiffs’ cause of action for a declaration required that the court declare in favor of defendant, and we modify accordingly (Decana Inc. v Contogouris, 55 AD3d 325, 326 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 460, 874 N.Y.S.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gristedes-operating-corp-v-axis-specialty-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack