Hudson Insurance v. AK Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hudson Insurance v. AK Construction Co.

83 A.D.3d 503, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655

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

DecidedApril 14, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 503 (Hudson Insurance v. AK Construction Co.) 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

Hudson Insurance v. AK Construction Co., 83 A.D.3d 503, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 19, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Panasia Estates, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Panasia Estates, Inc. dismissing the complaint as against it.

Given the motion court’s ruling that plaintiffs declaratory judgment complaint constituted a timely action for anticipatory subrogation against defendant AK Construction Co., LLC, plaintiffs claims against Panasia, which were predicated solely on the concern that it might have lost that potential subrogation right as a result of Panasia’s failure to bring a timely suit against AK Construction, should have been dismissed as moot. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31909(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 19, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Panasia Estates, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Panasia Estates, Inc. dismissing the complaint as against it.

Given the motion court’s ruling that plaintiffs declaratory judgment complaint constituted a timely action for anticipatory subrogation against defendant AK Construction Co., LLC, plaintiffs claims against Panasia, which were predicated solely on the concern that it might have lost that potential subrogation right as a result of Panasia’s failure to bring a timely suit against AK Construction, should have been dismissed as moot. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31909(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 503, 920 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-insurance-v-ak-construction-co-nyappdiv-2011.