Trokie v. York Preparatory School, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 129, 726 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 129 (Trokie v. York Preparatory School, 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
Trokie v. York Preparatory School, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 129, 726 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered March 29, 2000, and order same court (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered June 23, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, limited defendant-appellant York Preparatory School, Inc.’s remedy for defendant-respondent Pung Sang Construction Corpi.’s breach of a construction contract’s insur[130]*130anee procurement clause to recovery of the premium paid by York to procure its own liability insurance, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of adding York’s right to seek damages for any other expense arising out of the liability claim and not covered by substitute insurance, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The proper measure of York Preparatory School’s damages for Pung Bang’s breach of the subject insurance procurement clause is the full cost of insurance to York, i.e., the premiums it paid for its own insurance, any out-of-pocket costs that may have been incurred incidental to the policy, and any increase in its future insurance premiums resulting from the liability claim (see, Inchaustegui v 666 5th Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 96 NY2d 111). Since York only cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of the insurance procurement provision, it may not now argue, for the first time on appeal, that it is entitled to judgment based on the contract’s indemnity clause (see, Fisher v Society of N. Y. Hosp., 271 AD2d 262). Concur— Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Antinello v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
42 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Linarello v. City University of New York
6 A.D.3d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Wong v. New York Times Co.
297 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sheppard v. Blitman/Atlas Building Corp.
288 A.D.2d 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Yofi Book Publishing, Inc. v. Wil-Brook Realty Corp.
287 A.D.2d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 129, 726 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trokie-v-york-preparatory-school-inc-nyappdiv-2001.