Summary
noting that severing insurance coverage and liability actions was proper in order to avoid "the prejudice that would result from the jury's awareness of the existence of liability insurance."
Summary of this case from Gissim, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.Opinion
2011-12-15
Starlene ROBLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROTECH CONTRACTING CORP., et al., Defendants.[And a Third–Party Action].Quest Communications Company, LLC, etc., Second Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Kajima Construction Services, Inc., et al., Second Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (Jessica A. Desany of counsel), for appellant. Malapero & Prisco LLP, New York (Won J. Choi of counsel), for respondents.
Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (Jessica A. Desany of counsel), for appellant. Malapero & Prisco LLP, New York (Won J. Choi of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered October 8, 2010, which granted the motion of second third-party defendants Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., f/k/a Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited, and Tokio Marine Management, Inc. (collectively Tokio Marine) to sever the second third-party action from the main action, unanimously modified, on the *303 facts, to the extent of deleting so much of the order as states “the fourth-party action is severed from the main action” and substituting therefor “the second third-party action against Tokio Marine is severed from the main action,” and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The court properly exercised its discretion in severing the second third-party action against Tokio Marine from the main action to avoid the prejudice that would result from the jury's awareness of the existence of liability insurance ( see Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N.Y.2d 603, 607, 176 N.Y.S.2d 637, 152 N.E.2d 69 [1958]; Chunn v. New York City Hous. Auth., 55 A.D.3d 437, 866 N.Y.S.2d 145 [2008] ).