New York Telephone Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

280 A.D.2d 268, 719 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 908
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 268 (New York Telephone Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America) 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
New York Telephone Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 280 A.D.2d 268, 719 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Sal-man, J.), entered April 13, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiff New York Telephone Company for summary judgment, declaring that, as an additional insured under defendant-appellant Time Warner’s commercial general liability policy, plaintiff is entitled to be defended and, if necessary, indemnified by Time Warner’s insurer, defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Time Warner’s forwarding of the summons and complaint in the underlying personal injury action to its carrier Travelers constituted timely notice to Travelers of the occurrence involving New York Telephone, an additional insured under the Travelers policy issued to Time Warner and the only insured party under that policy against whom the summons and complaint had been served (cf., Delco Steel Fabricators v American Home Assur. Co., 40 AD2d 647, affd 31 NY2d 1014). Inasmuch as Time Warner’s interests were not adverse to those of New York Telephone at the time the summons and complaint were forwarded to Travelers, the notice provided by Time Warner’s forwarding of the summons and complaint sufficed to defeat the carrier’s affirmative defense of late notice (see, Rose v State of New York, 265 AD2d 473; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Insurance Co., 188 AD2d 259, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Martin Associates, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance
137 A.D.3d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
SPOLETA CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED
119 A.D.3d 1391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
American Home Assurance Co. v. BFC Construction Corp.
81 A.D.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
City of New York v. Lexington Insurance
735 F. Supp. 2d 99 (S.D. New York, 2010)
1700 Broadway Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance
54 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Commercial Underwriters Insurance v. Best Cleaning Corp.
6 A.D.3d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ambrosio v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District
5 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D.2d 268, 719 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-telephone-co-v-travelers-casualty-surety-co-of-america-nyappdiv-2001.