You are here: / / “Grouping of Contacts” Analysis to Determine Which State’s Law Applies...

“Grouping of Contacts” Analysis to Determine Which State’s Law Applies

The First Department noted Supreme Court correctly applied the “grouping of contacts” analysis in determining whether New York or Maryland law applied in an action to determine which insurance company was required to defend and indemnify.  The First Department further noted that late notice to the carrier because of the need to investigate did not warrant the carrier’s disclaimer of coverage.  Addressing the “grouping of contacts,” the court explained:

The motion court correctly determined that, under the standard “grouping of contacts” analysis, New York law, rather than Maryland law, applies in this case …. Indeed, the subcontract between Hayward Baker and Schiavone involved construction services at a site located in New York, Schiavone formed a joint venture in New York to perform those services, the accident and resulting litigation occurred in New York, Zurich asserts that it is a New York corporation with a home office in New York, Illinois National is licensed to do business in New York, and the demand letters and responses were sent from the parties’ New York offices … .  Illinois Natl Ins Co v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2013 NY slip Op 04881, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

You might also like
Court Has No Authority to Grant Application to File Late Notice of Claim After Statute of Limitations Has Expired.
JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO SAID SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM THE CASE.
INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENSE COUNSEL PROBABLY COULD HAVE WORKED OUT A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, AS ALLEGED, IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACTION FOR BREACH OF A LOAN GUARANTEE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained In Depth

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Statute of Limitations Defense in Article 78 Proceeding Waived Because Not Raised... Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Gr...