Travelers Indemnity Co.v. Briteway Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Travelers Indemnity Co.v. Briteway Painting, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 109, 698 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12065

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 109 (Travelers Indemnity Co.v. Briteway Painting, 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

Travelers Indemnity Co.v. Briteway Painting, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 109, 698 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeflf, J.), entered February 23, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence adduced by plaintiff, to the effect that the fire that damaged the insureds’ premises originated in an unventilated room on the premises in which defendants had stored paint-stained rags, a can of mineral spirits and a can of stain, the manufacturer of which warned that stain soaked rags may spontaneously ignite, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether negligence in the storage of the materials had caused the damage for which plaintiff, as subrogee, seeks to recover. We note that there was no indication of another source of the fire except for speculative allegations that a carpenter had been smoking on the day of the fire. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeflf, J.), entered February 23, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence adduced by plaintiff, to the effect that the fire that damaged the insureds’ premises originated in an unventilated room on the premises in which defendants had stored paint-stained rags, a can of mineral spirits and a can of stain, the manufacturer of which warned that stain soaked rags may spontaneously ignite, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether negligence in the storage of the materials had caused the damage for which plaintiff, as subrogee, seeks to recover. We note that there was no indication of another source of the fire except for speculative allegations that a carpenter had been smoking on the day of the fire. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 109, 698 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indemnity-cov-briteway-painting-inc-nyappdiv-1999.