Marinescu v. Colonial Indemnity Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marinescu v. Colonial Indemnity Insurance

293 A.D.2d 580, 740 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3727

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 580 (Marinescu v. Colonial Indemnity Insurance) 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

Marinescu v. Colonial Indemnity Insurance, 293 A.D.2d 580, 740 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant has an obligation to defend and indemnify Rama Contractors Corp. in an underlying action entitled Marinescu v Rama Contrs. Corp., pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 17829/1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Issues of fact exist which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see Osterreicher v Home Mut. Ins. Co., 272 AD2d 926; cf. Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1029; Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. v Persaud, 256 AD2d 502).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant has an obligation to defend and indemnify Rama Contractors Corp. in an underlying action entitled Marinescu v Rama Contrs. Corp., pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 17829/1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Issues of fact exist which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see Osterreicher v Home Mut. Ins. Co., 272 AD2d 926; cf. Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1029; Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. v Persaud, 256 AD2d 502).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 580, 740 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinescu-v-colonial-indemnity-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack