Tkacs v. Dominion Construction Corp.

278 A.D.2d 486, 718 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13909
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 26, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 486 (Tkacs v. Dominion Construction 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
Tkacs v. Dominion Construction Corp., 278 A.D.2d 486, 718 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dominion Construction Corp., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lock-man, J.), dated August 4, 1999, as, upon granting its motion [487]*487for summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification against the defendant Schnabel Roofing of Long Island, Inc., limited its damages to the cost of liability insurance it may have procured on its own.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the appellant is entitled to all damages resulting from the breach of the agreement at issue, including a defense in the underlying personal injury action, indemnification for its liability to the plaintiff, if any, and the costs it has incurred in defending the plaintiff's action.

In granting the appellant’s motion on its cross claim, the Supreme Court improperly limited the measure of its damages. Due to the respondent’s breach of an agreement to procure insurance naming the appellant as an additional insured, the appellant is entitled to all damages resulting from the breach, including a defense in the underlying personal injury action, indemnification for its liability to the plaintiff, if any, and the costs it has incurred in defending the plaintiff’s action (see, Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215; Kennelty v Darlind Constr., 260 AD2d 443; Darowski v High Meadow Coop. No. 1, 239 AD2d 541). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Town of Hempstead v. East Coast Resource Group, LLC
67 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Watters v. R.D. Branch Associates, LP
30 A.D.3d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 486, 718 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tkacs-v-dominion-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2000.