From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Natarus v. Corporate Property Investors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 2004
13 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06341.

December 20, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered June 10, 2003, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the third-party complaint as sought common-law and contractual indemnification for attorney's fees and expenses and as granted that branch of the third-party defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing those portions of the third-party complaint and the third cause of action in the third-party complaint to recover damages for failure to procure insurance.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the third-party defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action in the third-party complaint to recover damages for failure to procure insurance and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the third cause of action in the third-party complaint is reinstated.

Neither the third-party plaintiff nor the third-party defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the third cause of action in the third-party complaint ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324), as there are triable issues of fact concerning whether the third-party defendant procured the contractually-mandated insurance coverage ( see Hajdari v. 437 Madison Ave. Fee Assoc., 293 AD2d 360). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, such issue was not academic, notwithstanding dismissal of the underlying complaint ( see Hajdari v. 437 Madison Ave. Fee Assoc., supra; Keelan v. Sivan, 234 AD2d 516).

The third-party plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Natarus v. Corporate Property Investors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 2004
13 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Natarus v. Corporate Property Investors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JEAN NATARUS et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 20, 2004

Citations

13 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
785 N.Y.S.2d 309

Citing Cases

Zapeta v 5214 15 Ave Dev. LLC

Inasmuch as plaintiff's entire complaint has been dismissed as against Mr. Demolition, Mr. Demolition's third…

Stancati v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.

In light of the above decision, defendant is also entitled to summary judgment on the branch of its motion…