41 Cited authorities

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp
68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 21,117 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony
Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.
49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 24,753 times 9 Legal Analyses
Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."
Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center
64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 18,036 times 8 Legal Analyses
Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed
Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.
74 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 1,376 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery
Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.
34 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 1,468 times
Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"
Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am
80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 601 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"
Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 435 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance
100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 216 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[r]easonable minds can disagree" as to whether an "absolute pollution exclusion" bars coverage for injuries resulting from exposure to paint or solvent fumes
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Creative Housing Ltd.
88 N.Y.2d 347 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 254 times
Holding that an assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage for a suit for negligent management and supervision of an apartment building stemming from an assault committed by a third party who was not an employee of the insured
Garza v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
861 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 235 times
Holding that an interpretation which "would have the effect of rendering at least one clause superfluous or meaningless . . . is not preferred. . . ."

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Zurich American Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.

41 Cited authorities

Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."

Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed

Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery

Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"

Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"

Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata

Holding that "[r]easonable minds can disagree" as to whether an "absolute pollution exclusion" bars coverage for injuries resulting from exposure to paint or solvent fumes

Holding that an assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage for a suit for negligent management and supervision of an apartment building stemming from an assault committed by a third party who was not an employee of the insured

Holding that an interpretation which "would have the effect of rendering at least one clause superfluous or meaningless . . . is not preferred. . . ."