O'Rourke v. Chelsea Piers Management

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Rourke v. Chelsea Piers Management

272 A.D.2d 135, 708 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389

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

DecidedMay 9, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 135 (O'Rourke v. Chelsea Piers Management) 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'Rourke v. Chelsea Piers Management, 272 A.D.2d 135, 708 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 26, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion by defendants and third-party plaintiffs for summary judgment declaring that third-party defendant insurer Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (IINA) is obligated to indemnify, insure and defend them in the main action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants, in support of their cross motion for summary judgment, presented documentary evidence demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment in their favor, declaring that, pursuant to the subject policy issued by third-party defendant IINA, they were covered for the claim made by plaintiff in the main action and, accordingly, were entitled to be defended and indemnified against liability for that claim by IINA. In opposition to the motion, IINA merely submitted its attorney’s conclusory affirmation, stating, in relevant part, that defendants had breached the notice requirements of the insurance policy and that further discovery was needed. Such opposition was inadequate to raise a triable issue as to coverage and, accordingly, defendants’ cross motion for summary [136]*136judgment was properly granted (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967; Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204, 208; Finova Capital Corp. v CVS Revco D.S., 269 AD2d 265).

We have considered IINA’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias 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 (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 26, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion by defendants and third-party plaintiffs for summary judgment declaring that third-party defendant insurer Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (IINA) is obligated to indemnify, insure and defend them in the main action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants, in support of their cross motion for summary judgment, presented documentary evidence demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment in their favor, declaring that, pursuant to the subject policy issued by third-party defendant IINA, they were covered for the claim made by plaintiff in the main action and, accordingly, were entitled to be defended and indemnified against liability for that claim by IINA. In opposition to the motion, IINA merely submitted its attorney’s conclusory affirmation, stating, in relevant part, that defendants had breached the notice requirements of the insurance policy and that further discovery was needed. Such opposition was inadequate to raise a triable issue as to coverage and, accordingly, defendants’ cross motion for summary [136]*136judgment was properly granted (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967; Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204, 208; Finova Capital Corp. v CVS Revco D.S., 269 AD2d 265).

We have considered IINA’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 135, 708 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orourke-v-chelsea-piers-management-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack