Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v. K&M Architectural Window Prods., Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 205
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2019
Docket152829/14 8059 8058
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 205 (Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v. K&M Architectural Window Prods., Inc.) 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
Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v. K&M Architectural Window Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v K&M Architectural Window Prods., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 00205)
Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v K&M Architectural Window Prods., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 00205
Decided on January 10, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 10, 2019
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

152829/14 8059 8058

[*1]Old Republic General Insurance Corp., as subrogee of J.E. Levine Builders, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

K & M Architectural Window Products, Inc., etc., Defendant-Respondent.

Old Republic Insurance Corp., as subrogee of J.E. Levine Builders, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

K & M Architectural Window Products, Inc., etc., Defendant-Respondent.


Ken Maguire & Associates, PLLC, Wantagh (Kenneth R. Maguire of counsel), for appellants.

Goldberg Segalla, White Plains (Michael P. Kandler of counsel), for respondent.



Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa Crane, J.), entered September 13, 2017 and November 1, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motions for summary judgment declaring the antisubrogation rule inapplicable and dismissing the ninth affirmative defense, declared the antisubrogation rule applicable, and granted defendant's motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's claims are barred by the antisubrogation rule (see Parache v DD 11th Ave. LLC , 126 AD34d 441, 442 [1st Dept 2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/old-republic-gen-ins-corp-v-km-architectural-window-prods-inc-nyappdiv-2019.