From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moshiko Inc. v. Seiger Smith, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 20, 1988
529 N.E.2d 420 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Decided September 20, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Alvin Klein, J.

Kenneth P. Fremont for appellants.

Arthur N. Brook for Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, respondent.

Duncan B. Hume for Seiger Smith, Inc., and another, respondents.

Leaselex Realty Corp., respondent, precluded.



On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order of the Appellate Division insofar as it granted summary judgment to defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Joseph P. Sullivan at the Appellate Division ( 137 A.D.2d 170) addressing that portion of the litigation; appeal from so much of the order insofar as it denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendants Seiger Smith, Inc., and Vasaka dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the action between the affected parties within the meaning of the Constitution.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Moshiko Inc. v. Seiger Smith, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 20, 1988
529 N.E.2d 420 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

Moshiko Inc. v. Seiger Smith, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MOSHIKO, INC., et al., Appellants, v. SEIGER SMITH, INC., et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 20, 1988

Citations

529 N.E.2d 420 (N.Y. 1988)
529 N.E.2d 420
533 N.Y.S.2d 52

Citing Cases

Valle v. N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n

"A court may neither make nor vary an insurance contract by extending coverage beyond the fair intent and…

Tower Ins. of New York v. Prosper

red] under any provision of the insurance policy"' (Judlau Contr,. Inc. v Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 46 AD3d…