National Surety Corp. v. M. Parisi & Son Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Surety Corp. v. M. Parisi & Son Construction Co.

239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 396 (National Surety Corp. v. M. Parisi & Son Construction Co.) 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

National Surety Corp. v. M. Parisi & Son Construction Co., 239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover insurance premiums allegedly owed, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated March 15, 1996, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there is an issue of fact as to whether the general release executed in conjunction with the settlement of a prior action was intended to cover the subject matter of this action (see, Structural Processing Corp. v Farboil Co., 234 AD2d 284; Lefrak SBN Assocs. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256; Perritano v Town of Mamaroneck, 126 AD2d 623). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover insurance premiums allegedly owed, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated March 15, 1996, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there is an issue of fact as to whether the general release executed in conjunction with the settlement of a prior action was intended to cover the subject matter of this action (see, Structural Processing Corp. v Farboil Co., 234 AD2d 284; Lefrak SBN Assocs. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256; Perritano v Town of Mamaroneck, 126 AD2d 623). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-surety-corp-v-m-parisi-son-construction-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack