Mortillaro v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

285 A.D.2d 586, 728 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 23, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 586 (Mortillaro v. Public Service Mutual 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
Mortillaro v. Public Service Mutual Insurance, 285 A.D.2d 586, 728 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an action entitled Scagnelli v Stella’s Diner, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 23748/98, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated May 4, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendant American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[587]*587Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondent.

A plaintiff need not be privy to an insurance contract to commence a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights and obligations of the respective parties, so long as the plaintiff stands to benefit from the policy (see, Watson v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 246 AD2d 57; Tepedino v Zurich-Am. Ins. Group, 220 AD2d 579; Costa v Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 204 AD2d 591). Here, the plaintiffs clearly stand to benefit from the professional liability policy issued by the defendant American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (hereinafter AISL), to the plaintiffs’ insurance broker, the defendant Romania Insurance Brokerage, Inc. (hereinafter Romania). Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the disclaimer of coverage issued by AISL prior to obtaining a judgment against Romania, and the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against AISL. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

RLI Insurance v. Steely
65 A.D.3d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Vargas v. Boston Chicken, Inc.
269 F. Supp. 2d 92 (E.D. New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D.2d 586, 728 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mortillaro-v-public-service-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.