Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc. v. Allcity Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc. v. Allcity Insurance

282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 723 (Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc. v. Allcity 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

Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc. v. Allcity Insurance, 282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants Allcity Insurance Company and Empire Insurance Company are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., Hudson Waste Haulage, Inc., and Mt. Pleasant Sanitation, Inc., in an underlying action entitled Ryan v Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., et al., pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under Index No. 97/5110, Allcity Insurance Company and Empire Insurance Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 19, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment on the issue of indemnification to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting summary judgment on the issue of indemnification and finding that the defendant Empire Insurance [724]*724Company is obligated to indemnify the insureds in the underlying action; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although, in deciding the propriety of a motion for summary judgment, a court “may search the record and grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party on any related claim” (A.C. Transp. v Board of Educ., 253 AD2d 330, 338; CPLR 3212 [b]), the Supreme Court improperly granted summary judgment in this case. There are questions of fact regarding, inter alia, whether the plaintiffs Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., Hudson Waste Haulage, Inc., and Mt. Pleasant Sanitation, Inc., were employers of the decedent in the underlying action, which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants Allcity Insurance Company and Empire Insurance Company are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., Hudson Waste Haulage, Inc., and Mt. Pleasant Sanitation, Inc., in an underlying action entitled Ryan v Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., et al., pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under Index No. 97/5110, Allcity Insurance Company and Empire Insurance Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 19, 2000, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment on the issue of indemnification to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting summary judgment on the issue of indemnification and finding that the defendant Empire Insurance [724]*724Company is obligated to indemnify the insureds in the underlying action; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although, in deciding the propriety of a motion for summary judgment, a court “may search the record and grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party on any related claim” (A.C. Transp. v Board of Educ., 253 AD2d 330, 338; CPLR 3212 [b]), the Supreme Court improperly granted summary judgment in this case. There are questions of fact regarding, inter alia, whether the plaintiffs Mid-Hudson Equipment, Inc., Hudson Waste Haulage, Inc., and Mt. Pleasant Sanitation, Inc., were employers of the decedent in the underlying action, which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 723, 724 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-hudson-equipment-inc-v-allcity-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack