Katz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. City of New York

203 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4213

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

DecidedApril 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 179 (Katz v. City of New York) 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

Katz v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J., on the decision of Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, [180]*180awarded indemnification in favor of third-party plaintiff against third-party defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant’s challenge to third-party plaintiff’s claim for indemnification is based on the doctrine of preindemnification squarely rejected by the Court of Appeals in North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co. (82 NY2d 281, 291-294). Nor should third-party plaintiff’s failure to timely notify its insurer of plaintiff’s underlying claim, resulting in the loss of its own insurance coverage, defeat its separate right to indemnification. Third-party defendant’s insurer received a premium to insure against the very risk upon which plaintiff recovered judgment, and its liability therefor should not be shared with a party who is only vicariously liable, regardless of whether that party has received or is entitled to receive any insurance proceeds on account of the judgment (supra, at 293-294). We have considered third-party defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J., on the decision of Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, [180]*180awarded indemnification in favor of third-party plaintiff against third-party defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant’s challenge to third-party plaintiff’s claim for indemnification is based on the doctrine of preindemnification squarely rejected by the Court of Appeals in North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co. (82 NY2d 281, 291-294). Nor should third-party plaintiff’s failure to timely notify its insurer of plaintiff’s underlying claim, resulting in the loss of its own insurance coverage, defeat its separate right to indemnification. Third-party defendant’s insurer received a premium to insure against the very risk upon which plaintiff recovered judgment, and its liability therefor should not be shared with a party who is only vicariously liable, regardless of whether that party has received or is entitled to receive any insurance proceeds on account of the judgment (supra, at 293-294). We have considered third-party defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack