17 Cited authorities

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

    89 N.Y.2d 786 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 300 times
    Finding indemnification provisions unenforceable where negligence had been demonstrated against the party seeking enforcement
  2. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

    248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 1,895 times   9 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"
  3. Worth Constr. v. Admiral Ins. Co.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3992 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 121 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
  4. United States F G v. Annunziata

    67 N.Y.2d 229 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 219 times
    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”
  5. Maroney v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins.

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7865 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying this definition to a coverage exclusion denying claims that "arose out of" uninsured premises
  6. People v. Stewart

    40 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 132 times
    Conflicting testimony between witnesses simply creates a credibility question for the trier of fact
  7. W&W Glass Sys., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.

    91 A.D.3d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In W & W Glass Sys., Inc. v Admiral Ins. Co. (91 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2012]), for example, where the relevant endorsement provided that a general contractor was covered under its subcontractor's policy " only with respect to liability caused by [the subcontractor's] ongoing operations performed for that [additional] insured'" (id. at 530 [emphasis added]), we held that "[t]he language in the additional insured endorsement granting coverage does not require a negligence trigger" (id. at 531 [emphasis added]).
  8. Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

    143 A.D.3d 146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 31 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"
  9. Essex Ins. Co. v. Laruccia Constr., Inc.

    71 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 27 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 18 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