Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty

225 A.D.2d 1054, 639 N.Y.2d 433, 639 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1054 (Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty) 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

Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty, 225 A.D.2d 1054, 639 N.Y.2d 433, 639 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[1055]*1055The court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action for implied indemnification. A motion to amend the complaint should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment lacks merit (see, Goldstein v Barco of Cal., 109 AD2d 817, 818); plaintiff’s remedy is subrogation, not indemnification (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Regional Tr. Serv., 79 AD2d 858, 859). Thus, we modify the order on appeal by denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

[1055]*1055The court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action for implied indemnification. A motion to amend the complaint should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment lacks merit (see, Goldstein v Barco of Cal., 109 AD2d 817, 818); plaintiff’s remedy is subrogation, not indemnification (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Regional Tr. Serv., 79 AD2d 858, 859). Thus, we modify the order on appeal by denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1054, 639 N.Y.2d 433, 639 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-insurance-v-finnerty-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack