Harlington Realty Corp. v. S.L.G. Discount Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harlington Realty Corp. v. S.L.G. Discount Corp.

162 A.D.2d 176, 556 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075

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

DecidedJune 12, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 176 (Harlington Realty Corp. v. S.L.G. Discount Corp.) 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

Harlington Realty Corp. v. S.L.G. Discount Corp., 162 A.D.2d 176, 556 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered on May 25, 1989, denying the motion by defendant S.L.G. Discount Corp. to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action by plaintiffs insurer, the lease provided for mutual release and waiver of the right of subrogation by either party’s insurer, only if each party’s insurance policy [177]*177contained a clause providing that such a release or waiver would not invalidate the policy or increase its premiums. Plaintiffs insurer clearly reserved its right to subrogate for losses based upon claims paid by it on the insured’s behalf. Accordingly, there was no valid mutual release and waiver of the right to subrogation, and plaintiffs insurer was thus entitled to maintain this claim. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered on May 25, 1989, denying the motion by defendant S.L.G. Discount Corp. to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action by plaintiffs insurer, the lease provided for mutual release and waiver of the right of subrogation by either party’s insurer, only if each party’s insurance policy [177]*177contained a clause providing that such a release or waiver would not invalidate the policy or increase its premiums. Plaintiffs insurer clearly reserved its right to subrogate for losses based upon claims paid by it on the insured’s behalf. Accordingly, there was no valid mutual release and waiver of the right to subrogation, and plaintiffs insurer was thus entitled to maintain this claim. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 176, 556 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlington-realty-corp-v-slg-discount-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack