Howard v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 183, 637 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 183 (Howard v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, 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

Howard v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 183, 637 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 15, 1995, which granted third-party plaintiff’s motion to strike third-party defendant’s answer for failure to obey an order of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the excuse offered by third-party defendant for its failure to produce a policy of insurance that was issued to third-party plaintiff’s contractor and allegedly named second third-party plaintiff as an additional insured — its practice of destroying policies, except for declaration sheets, two years after their expiration, well within the three-year period of limitations for negligence actions and the six-year period for contract actions — is "indefensible”. Even on its own terms, the practice should not have been carried out here, where the underlying personal action injury, which named both third-party defendant and its contractor, was instituted more than two months before the policy would have been destroyed. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 15, 1995, which granted third-party plaintiff’s motion to strike third-party defendant’s answer for failure to obey an order of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the excuse offered by third-party defendant for its failure to produce a policy of insurance that was issued to third-party plaintiff’s contractor and allegedly named second third-party plaintiff as an additional insured — its practice of destroying policies, except for declaration sheets, two years after their expiration, well within the three-year period of limitations for negligence actions and the six-year period for contract actions — is "indefensible”. Even on its own terms, the practice should not have been carried out here, where the underlying personal action injury, which named both third-party defendant and its contractor, was instituted more than two months before the policy would have been destroyed. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 183, 637 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-dagostino-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1996.