§Why CasetextPricing

The Burlington Insurance Company, Appellant,v.NYC Transit Authority, et al., Respondents.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

    89 N.Y.2d 786 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 341 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding indemnification provisions unenforceable where negligence had been demonstrated against the party seeking enforcement

  2. Maroney v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins.

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7865 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying this definition to a coverage exclusion denying claims that "arose out of" uninsured premises

  3. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

    248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 2,022 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty and stating that "the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty"

  4. Worth Constr. v. Admiral Ins. Co.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3992 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 150 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding contractor could no longer argue any connection existed between accident and construction of staircase once contractor admitted subcontractor did not negligently install staircase

  5. United States F G v. Annunziata

    67 N.Y.2d 229 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that where condition included in one provision is omitted from another, it “must be assumed to have been intentional under accepted canons of contract construction”

  6. Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

    143 A.D.3d 146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that when interpreting an insurance policy, a Court "must be guided by the rules of contract interpretation because an insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured"

  7. W&W Glass Sys., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.

    91 A.D.3d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the claim involved an employee of the subcontractor who was injured while performing the subcontractor's work under the subcontract, additional insured coverage was owed to the subcontractor

  8. People v. Stewart

    40 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 131 times
    Conflicting testimony between witnesses simply creates a credibility question for the trier of fact

  9. Essex Ins. Co. v. Laruccia Constr., Inc.

    71 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 35 times

    No. 2009-05854. March 16, 2010. In an action to recover unpaid insurance premiums, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered May 8, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Soffer Rech Borg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Borg of counsel), for appellant. Lawrence Van Dyke, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., for respondents. Before: Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed

  10. Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8214 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    11-24-2014 STRAUSS PAINTING, INC., Appellant–Respondent, v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Appellant, and Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., Respondent. Richard Janowitz, Mineola, for appellant-respondent. Crowell & Moring LLP, New York City (Clifton S. Elgarten, Stuart C. Levene and Jared A. Levine of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (William J. Mitchell of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Richard Janowitz, Mineola, for appellant-respondent