Kovalchuck v. McLoughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kovalchuck v. McLoughlin

205 A.D.2d 666, 614 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6436

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

DecidedJune 20, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 666 (Kovalchuck v. McLoughlin) 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

Kovalchuck v. McLoughlin, 205 A.D.2d 666, 614 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a third-party action for a judgment declaring that the appellant has a duty to defend and indemnify the respondents in connection with the main action to recover damages for professional malpractice, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated December 3, 1992, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the existence of triable issues of fact precludes the granting of summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a third-party action for a judgment declaring that the appellant has a duty to defend and indemnify the respondents in connection with the main action to recover damages for professional malpractice, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated December 3, 1992, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the existence of triable issues of fact precludes the granting of summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 666, 614 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kovalchuck-v-mcloughlin-nyappdiv-1994.