Sacks & Sacks v. Home Insurance

198 A.D.2d 139, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 18, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 139 (Sacks & Sacks v. Home Insurance) 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
Sacks & Sacks v. Home Insurance, 198 A.D.2d 139, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about April 21, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendant-appellant must provide plaintiffs with a defense in the underlying action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While many of the acts of legal malpractice alleged in the underlying action may be within the prior acts exclusion of the policy, it is not clear that they all are. As the IAS Court stated, in the absence of a showing "that the allegations of the [underlying] complaint cast the pleading entirely within the policy exclusion”, defendant owes plaintiffs a duty to defend (see, Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78 NY2d 61, 65-66). Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Related

Coregis Insurance v. Blancato
75 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D. New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 139, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacks-sacks-v-home-insurance-nyappdiv-1993.