Twin City Fire Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Twin City Fire Insurance v. State Insurance Fund

65 A.D.3d 945, 885 N.Y.S.2d 411

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 945 (Twin City Fire Insurance v. State Insurance Fund) 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

Twin City Fire Insurance v. State Insurance Fund, 65 A.D.3d 945, 885 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered on May 7, 2008, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, the cross motion granted, and the complaint dismissed, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff sought defendant’s assumption of its defense and indemnity in an underlying personal injury action, and contribution of 50% toward the costs of defending and settling that [946]*946action. Although denominated an action for declaratory relief, this is essentially an action to recover money damages against a state agency, the proper forum for which is the Court of Claims (D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund, 48 AD3d 400, 402 [2008]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered on May 7, 2008, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, the cross motion granted, and the complaint dismissed, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff sought defendant’s assumption of its defense and indemnity in an underlying personal injury action, and contribution of 50% toward the costs of defending and settling that [946]*946action. Although denominated an action for declaratory relief, this is essentially an action to recover money damages against a state agency, the proper forum for which is the Court of Claims (D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund, 48 AD3d 400, 402 [2008]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 945, 885 N.Y.S.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twin-city-fire-insurance-v-state-insurance-fund-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack