Thomas Johnson, Inc. v. State Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas Johnson, Inc. v. State Insurance

50 A.D.3d 1544, 855 N.Y.S.2d 396

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

DecidedApril 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1544 (Thomas Johnson, Inc. v. State 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

Thomas Johnson, Inc. v. State Insurance, 50 A.D.3d 1544, 855 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered February 26, 2007 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment, among other things, granted in part plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant’s contention that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action is without merit (see CFLR 3001; cf. D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund, 48 AD3d 400 [2008]; see generally Hattock v State of New York, 32 NY2d 599, 603 [1973]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered February 26, 2007 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment, among other things, granted in part plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant’s contention that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action is without merit (see CFLR 3001; cf. D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund, 48 AD3d 400 [2008]; see generally Hattock v State of New York, 32 NY2d 599, 603 [1973]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1544, 855 N.Y.S.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-johnson-inc-v-state-insurance-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack