18 Cited authorities

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp
68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 21,214 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 24,821 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 . . ."
Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 492 times
Denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his § 240 claim where there is any issue of fact as to whether there is an enumerated safety device that could have prevented his fall
Universal Am. Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 5516 (N.Y. 2015) Cited 182 times 14 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the language of an insurance rider unambiguously applied to losses incurred from unauthorized access to plaintiff's computer system, where the "[t]he intentional word placement of 'fraudulent' before 'entry' and 'change' manifest[ed] the parties' [specific] intent."
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Creative Housing Ltd.
88 N.Y.2d 347 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 256 times 1 Legal Analyses
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
Teichman v. Community Hosp
87 N.Y.2d 514 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 215 times
Stating that the “right of subrogation” was “formulated to prevent unjust enrichment” and “is based upon principles of equity and natural justice”
Vigilant v. Stearns
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2080 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 143 times
Finding plaintiff's failure to obtain defendant insurer's approval to settlement violated the terms of the insurance policy and precluded coverage
Cragg v. Allstate Indemnity Corporation
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4767 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 122 times
No. 118. Argued May 4, 2011. decided June 9, 2011. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered May 7, 2010. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), which had granted defendant Allstate Indemnity Corporation's motion for summary judgment declaring that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant insureds
Mostow v. State Farm Insurance
88 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 142 times
Affirming an insurance award of over $100,000 when the policy ambiguously provided both a $100,000 per person limit and a $300,000 limit when two or more persons were injured
Platek v. Town of Hamburg
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 1483 (N.Y. 2015) Cited 55 times
Holding the court must give effect "to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leave no provision without force and effect"

Ronald J. Papa et al.,, Appellants,v.Associated Indemnity Corporation et al., Respondents.

18 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 . . ."

Denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his § 240 claim where there is any issue of fact as to whether there is an enumerated safety device that could have prevented his fall

Concluding that the language of an insurance rider unambiguously applied to losses incurred from unauthorized access to plaintiff's computer system, where the "[t]he intentional word placement of 'fraudulent' before 'entry' and 'change' manifest[ed] the parties' [specific] intent."

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

Stating that the “right of subrogation” was “formulated to prevent unjust enrichment” and “is based upon principles of equity and natural justice”

Finding plaintiff's failure to obtain defendant insurer's approval to settlement violated the terms of the insurance policy and precluded coverage

Affirming an insurance award of over $100,000 when the policy ambiguously provided both a $100,000 per person limit and a $300,000 limit when two or more persons were injured

Holding the court must give effect "to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leave no provision without force and effect"