From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cubero v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1976
51 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

February 17, 1976


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., in which defendant's attorney, counsel for Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, moved for permission to withdraw as defendant's attorney, (1) Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 2, 1975, as (a) directed it and its counsel to defend this action on behalf of defendant, (b) directed Consolidated Mutual to turn over all investigative materials, etc., to Greater New York Mutual and (c) ordered the newly appointed counsel to interpose an answer and (2) plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the said order as relieved Consolidated Mutual and its attorney of the defense of the action, in the event that Greater New York Mutual and its counsel be relieved of such defense on its appeal. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to the prosecution of a plenary action for a judgment declaring the respective rights of the insurance companies and of the parties. All further proceedings in this action are stayed pending determination of such plenary action for a declaratory judgment. Our determination is without prejudice to (a) a motion by plaintiffs or defendant to vacate the stay in the event that such a plenary action is not prosecuted with due diligence and expedition and (b) a renewal of the motion by defendant's attorney upon the determination of such plenary action. In our opinion, issues of fact and law are raised as to defendant's lack of co-operation with the Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company and as to the right of the Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company to disclaim liability and to withdraw completely from the defense. Such issues should be promptly determined in a plenary action for a declaratory judgment. Pending such determination, this action should remain in status quo and its further prosecution stayed (see Ganas v Terry, 16 A.D.2d 826). Gulotta, P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cubero v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1976
51 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Cubero v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:MARIA CUBERO et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. MOLLIE SCHWARTZ…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Peluso v. Red Rose Restaurant, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. It is within the Supreme Court's discretion to issue a stay…

Landmark Ins. Co. v. Virginia Sur. Co.

In addition, courts granting a stay to address insurance coverage issues have done so on the condition that…