Jonathan Woodner Co. v. American Phoenix Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jonathan Woodner Co. v. American Phoenix Corp.

304 A.D.2d 366, 756 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3758

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

DecidedApril 8, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 366 (Jonathan Woodner Co. v. American Phoenix 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

Jonathan Woodner Co. v. American Phoenix Corp., 304 A.D.2d 366, 756 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2002, granting defendants-respondents’ motion [367]*367for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint as against defendant-respondent insurance brokers was properly dismissed. The complained-of omission, i.e., the failure to procure adequate insurance coverage, took place subsequent to the termination of defendants-respondents as plaintiffs exclusive insurance brokers and their substitution by successor brokers, and defendants-respondents, particularly under these circumstances, had “no continuing duty to advise, guide, or direct [plaintiff] to obtain additional coverage * * (Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 273 [1997]; accord Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. v Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 195 AD2d 320, 321 [1993].) Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2002, granting defendants-respondents’ motion [367]*367for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint as against defendant-respondent insurance brokers was properly dismissed. The complained-of omission, i.e., the failure to procure adequate insurance coverage, took place subsequent to the termination of defendants-respondents as plaintiffs exclusive insurance brokers and their substitution by successor brokers, and defendants-respondents, particularly under these circumstances, had “no continuing duty to advise, guide, or direct [plaintiff] to obtain additional coverage * * (Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 273 [1997]; accord Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. v Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 195 AD2d 320, 321 [1993].) Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 366, 756 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-woodner-co-v-american-phoenix-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack