Waldbaums, Inc. v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waldbaums, Inc. v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co.

303 A.D.2d 402, 755 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 402 (Waldbaums, Inc. v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co.) 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

Waldbaums, Inc. v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co., 303 A.D.2d 402, 755 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying action entitled Brown v Waldbaums Inc., commenced in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, under Index No. 16975/93, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated September 20, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated July 3, 2001, denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to indemnify them for the amount paid in the underlying action, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $179,070.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to indemnify them for the amount paid in the underlying action is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants were obligated to indemnify them in the underlying action. There are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the policy’s vendor’s endorsement (see e.g. Sobers v Lopresti, 283 AD2d 633 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying action entitled Brown v Waldbaums Inc., commenced in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, under Index No. 16975/93, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated September 20, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated July 3, 2001, denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to indemnify them for the amount paid in the underlying action, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $179,070.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to indemnify them for the amount paid in the underlying action is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the defendants were obligated to indemnify them in the underlying action. There are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the policy’s vendor’s endorsement (see e.g. Sobers v Lopresti, 283 AD2d 633 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 402, 755 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldbaums-inc-v-lumbermans-mutual-casualty-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack