High Definition Mri, P.C.
v.
Liberty Mut. Holding Co.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Mar 15, 2017
48 N.Y.S.3d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
48 N.Y.S.3d 576148 A.D.3d 470

03-15-2017

HIGH DEFINITION MRI, P.C., etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

D'Agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Lederman of counsel), for appellant. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP, Armonk (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondents.


D'Agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Lederman of counsel), for appellant.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP, Armonk (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered May 11, 2016, dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the judgment vacated, and the complaint reinstated, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 4, 2016, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss, unanimously dismissed, without costs as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Contrary to the motion court's conclusion, the breach of contract action against defendants Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Inc., and Indiana Insurance Company provides adequate notice of the transactions and occurrences intended to be proved (see CPLR 3013 ), and the cause of action for a declaration that defendants' claim-handling processes are unlawful and that plaintiff is properly incorporated states a cause of action for declaratory relief (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Anikeyeva, 89 A.D.3d 1009, 1010, 934 N.Y.S.2d 196 [2d Dept.2011] ).

ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, GESMER, JJ., concur.