Vaphides v. Dormitory Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vaphides v. Dormitory Authority

262 A.D.2d 552, 691 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7047

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 552 (Vaphides v. Dormitory Authority) 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

Vaphides v. Dormitory Authority, 262 A.D.2d 552, 691 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Post-cap Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 15, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant TDX Construction Corporation, in effect, for partial summary judgment on the latter’s third cross claim insofar as asserted against it based on [553]*553its failure, inter alia, to obtain insurance naming the defendant TDX Construction Corporation as an additional insured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellant breached the subject contract by failing to obtain insurance which named the defendant TDX Construction Corporation as an additional insured (see, Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Post-cap Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 15, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant TDX Construction Corporation, in effect, for partial summary judgment on the latter’s third cross claim insofar as asserted against it based on [553]*553its failure, inter alia, to obtain insurance naming the defendant TDX Construction Corporation as an additional insured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellant breached the subject contract by failing to obtain insurance which named the defendant TDX Construction Corporation as an additional insured (see, Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 552, 691 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaphides-v-dormitory-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack