You are here: / / LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE...

LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the complaint raised the reasonable possibility that plaintiff Cumberland Farms would be liable in a slip and fall case, even though the subject property had been leased to another. Therefore, Cumberland was entitled to summary judgment declaring the lessee's insurance carrier was obligated to defend Cumberland:

“A duty to defend is triggered by the allegations contained in the underlying complaint” … . “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . The duty remains “even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Nonetheless, “an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” … .

… [T]he complaint in the underlying action alleged that Cumberland was negligent in its ownership, operation, control, and maintenance of the subject gas station. However, the defendants' submissions in support of their motion included evidence that Cumberland leased the gas station to Noori as a franchisee. Since Cumberland's liability, if any, may hinge on the scope of its obligations under the agreements entered into with Noori that established their franchisor/franchisee relationship, the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage for Cumberland in the underlying action … . Cumberland Farms, Inc. v Tower Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02048, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).
BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE INFORMED HIM OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE ROBBERY FIRST CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, DEFENDANT WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF MURDER, BURGLARY AND ROBBERY, APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
AT THE TIME THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE BORROWER HAD BEEN IN DEFAULT; A DISCREPENCY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE DEFAULT IN THE 90-DAY NOTICE (JULY 2009) AND THE DATE IN THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AND IN THE COMPLAINT (MAY 2011) CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE (SECOND DEPT). ​
POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT). ​

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED. BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT...