Larson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larson v. City of New York

214 A.D.2d 413, 625 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedApril 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 413 (Larson 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

Larson v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 413, 625 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1994, which denied third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the employee exclusion in the National Union insurance policy clearly bars coverage of Simpson Metal’s employee’s alleged on-the-job injuries (plaintiff Larson), the anti-subrogation rule does not apply here. (See, North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 281, 296.) We also note that there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that NAB Construction and Simpson Metal are "united in interest” and that a potential conflict of interest exists between them to warrant a disregard of their separate corporate identities. (See, Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213; and cf., Fireman’s Ins. Co. v Wheeler, 165 AD2d 141.)

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1994, which denied third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the employee exclusion in the National Union insurance policy clearly bars coverage of Simpson Metal’s employee’s alleged on-the-job injuries (plaintiff Larson), the anti-subrogation rule does not apply here. (See, North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 281, 296.) We also note that there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that NAB Construction and Simpson Metal are "united in interest” and that a potential conflict of interest exists between them to warrant a disregard of their separate corporate identities. (See, Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213; and cf., Fireman’s Ins. Co. v Wheeler, 165 AD2d 141.)

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 413, 625 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack