O'Brien v. London Woods Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. London Woods Development Corp.

280 A.D.2d 423, 721 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1961

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 423 (O'Brien v. London Woods Development Corp.) 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

O'Brien v. London Woods Development Corp., 280 A.D.2d 423, 721 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 11, 2000, which deemed a motion by plaintiff and a cross motion by defendant and third-party plaintiff London Woods Development Corp. (London) to be an application for renewal of the court’s decision dated September 16, 1999, and, upon granting renewal, granted London’s prior cross motion for summary judgment declaring that third-party defendant Royal Insurance Company (Royal) must defend and indemnify London in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, renewal denied and the initial denial of London’s original cross motion reinstated.

The IAS Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting renewal since sufficient grounds were not offered. The agreement specifying that plaintiffs counsel had not been retained until October 1995 obviously was not newly discovered evidence. Moreover, counsel, in his affirmation in support of “reargument,” did not explain why this fact was not advanced during prior motion practice (cf, Ralat v New York City Hous. Auth., 265 AD2d 185, 186).

We find on this record that summary judgment declaring that Royal is obligated to defend and indemnify London is not warranted since there exist questions of fact as to whether London and/or plaintiff provided timely notice of the occurrence to Royal and as to whether Royal gave timely notice of disclaimer. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 11, 2000, which deemed a motion by plaintiff and a cross motion by defendant and third-party plaintiff London Woods Development Corp. (London) to be an application for renewal of the court’s decision dated September 16, 1999, and, upon granting renewal, granted London’s prior cross motion for summary judgment declaring that third-party defendant Royal Insurance Company (Royal) must defend and indemnify London in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, renewal denied and the initial denial of London’s original cross motion reinstated.

The IAS Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting renewal since sufficient grounds were not offered. The agreement specifying that plaintiffs counsel had not been retained until October 1995 obviously was not newly discovered evidence. Moreover, counsel, in his affirmation in support of “reargument,” did not explain why this fact was not advanced during prior motion practice (cf, Ralat v New York City Hous. Auth., 265 AD2d 185, 186).

We find on this record that summary judgment declaring that Royal is obligated to defend and indemnify London is not warranted since there exist questions of fact as to whether London and/or plaintiff provided timely notice of the occurrence to Royal and as to whether Royal gave timely notice of disclaimer. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 423, 721 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-london-woods-development-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack