Nagdeman & Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagdeman & Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

262 A.D.2d 58, 689 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428

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

DecidedJune 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 58 (Nagdeman & Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine 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

Nagdeman & Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 58, 689 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant insurer’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint and declared that defendant was not obligated to defend and/or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the claims in the underlying action against plaintiff herein sound in breach of contract and not libel. Accordingly, as it is undisputed that the subject contract of insurance issued .by defendant does not provide plaintiff with liability coverage for contract claims, the complaint seeking to compel defendant to defend and indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action was properly dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant insurer’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint and declared that defendant was not obligated to defend and/or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the claims in the underlying action against plaintiff herein sound in breach of contract and not libel. Accordingly, as it is undisputed that the subject contract of insurance issued .by defendant does not provide plaintiff with liability coverage for contract claims, the complaint seeking to compel defendant to defend and indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action was properly dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 58, 689 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagdeman-co-v-st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.