You are here: / PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE...

Search Results

/

PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it ruled two lawsuits joined for trial could be held in the county where the second of the two actions, as opposed to the first, was commenced:

“[W]here actions commenced in different counties have been consolidated [or joined for trial] pursuant to CPLR 602, the venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances are present, which decision is also addressed to the sound discretion of the court” … . Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in placing the venue of the joint trial in Queens County, since EMB [the defendants in the second suit] failed to establish the existence of special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the general rule … . Tieshmaker v EMB Contr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06819, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED)/VENUE (PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED)

/ ,

DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO (COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion too complex for summary here (by Justice Tom), affirmed the dismissal of complaints stemming from the Madoff Ponzi scheme pursuant to the doctrine of in pari delicto (courts will not resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers).

In this case, plaintiff’s claims are precluded under the doctrine of in pari delicto. As the funds’ bankruptcy trustee, plaintiff stands in the funds’ shoes, and is subject to a defense based on the in pari delicto doctrine to the same extent as the funds … . Thus, the doctrine “prevents the trustee from recovering in tort if the corporation, acting through authorized employees in their official capacities, participated in the tort” … .

While a claim of in pari delicto sometimes requires factual development and is therefore not amenable to dismissal at the pleading stage … , the doctrine can apply on a motion to dismiss in an appropriate case … , such as where its application is “plain on the face of the pleadings” … . New Greenwich Litig. Trustee, LLC v Citco Fund Servs. (Europe) B.V., 2016 NY Slip Op 06796, 1st Dept 10-18-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/CORPORATION LAW (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/IN PAR DELICTO (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/MADOFF PONZI SCHEME (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)

/ ,

DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing the defendants’ fraud-related convictions, determined (1) the defense did not “open the door” to the admission of hearsay evidence that a nontestifying codefendant (Solomon) pled guilty in a related matter, and (2) the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

… [T]he inquiry whether a defendant opened the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence “is twofold — whether and to what extent, the evidence or argument said to open the door is incomplete and misleading, and what if any otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to correct the misleading impression” … .  * * *

A party seeking to introduce evidence under the exception must demonstrate that “each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, [was] acting within the course of regular business conduct” when the record was made … . We find that although bank personnel were acting under a business duty when the record was created, the record fails to demonstrate that Solomon was acting under such a duty when he supplied the information at issue. People v Schlesinger Elec. Contrs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06742, 1st Dept 10-13-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/OPEN THE DOOR (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)

/

NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn too detailed to be summarized here, upheld the validity of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC’s) “Accessibility Rules” which aim to increase the number of hybrid and wheel-chair-accessible taxicabs and livery vehicles:

In keeping with [the] legislative intent, the TLC promulgated sections 51-03, 58-50 and the other aspects of the Accessibility Rules. In those rules, the TLC established a precondition for commencement of the program that encouraged the development of a vehicle that is both compliant with [Administrative Code] § 19-533 [re: hybrid vehicles] and accessible, consistent with its twin statutory mandates of promoting cleaner air and serving disabled passengers. Recognizing that such a vehicle might not be developed, however, the TLC included language in this rule limiting the time period in which this precondition remained in effect to no later than January 1, 2016, 20 months after the Accessibility Rules were promulgated. In doing so, the TLC rationally promulgated rules providing for a reasonable period of time for the development of an accessible hybrid electric vehicle while ensuring that, at minimum, the TLC’s mandate to increase the number of accessible taxicabs would be fulfilled. Matter of Clair v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06768, 1st Dept 10-13-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/TAXIS (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/DISABILITIES, PERSONS WITH (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/HYBRID VEHICLES (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)

/

COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.

The Second Department determined, under the law applicable at the time, a cotenant in possession (Midgley, Jr.) acquired full title to the property (i.e., acquired the cotenant’s interest) by adverse possession:

Midgley, Sr., left his estate, in equal parts, to Midgley, Jr., and a man named Robert E. Sayre, Sr. (hereinafter Sayre, Sr.). Midgley, Jr., claimed that, in 1971, Sayre, Sr., refused to participate in the operation or maintenance of the property and that Midgley, Jr., exclusively possessed and operated the property from that point forward. Midgley, Jr., paid the real estate taxes on the property and leased the property to various farmers and a nursery. All rents from these tenants were paid to Midgley, Jr. Midgley, Jr., farmed the property, growing rye, during the years that he could not find a suitable tenant. Sayre, Sr., died in 2005. In 2009, Midgley, Jr., commenced this action, alleging that he had become the sole lawful owner of the property by adverse possession and, therefore, was entitled to a judgment barring any claim to the property by, among others, the heirs of Sayre, Sr.

Under the law existing at the time title allegedly vested here, in the absence of an overt acknowledgment during the statutory period that ownership rested with another party, actual knowledge of the true owner, or co-owner as is the case here, did not destroy the element of claim of right … . “Where . . . the party claiming adverse possession is a tenant-in-common in exclusive possession, the statutory period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may acquire full title by adverse possession” … . Midgley v Phillips, 2016 NY Slip Op 06688, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

REAL PROPERTY (COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION)/ADVERSE POSSESSION (COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION)/TENANTS IN COMMON (COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION)

/ ,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE.

The Second Department determined the common law negligence cause of action brought by a police officer against the owner of property abutting the sidewalk where the officer allegedly slipped and fell, was properly dismissed. The applicable village and town codes did not make an abutting landowner liable in tort to someone injured on the sidewalk. However, the police officer’s action under General Municipal Law 205-e properly survived summary judgment. A property owner’s violation of a code provision requiring maintenance of the sidewalk was a proper basis for an action under General Municipal Law 205-e:

… [ t]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, which seeks to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. “A police officer seeking to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e must identify a statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply and must, in addition, set forth facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused harm to him or her” … . As a prerequisite to recovery pursuant to a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action, a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear legal duties … .

* * * Section 302.3 of the 2007 Property Maintenance Code of New York State (see 19 NYCRR 1226.1) has been found by this Court to be a proper predicate for recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e … .

Further, § 181-11 of the Town Code and § 250-27 of the Village Code are well-developed bodies of law that impose clear duties upon every property owner to keep his or her sidewalk in good and safe repair. Lewis v Palazzolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 06686, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SLIP AND FALL (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SIDEWALKS (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/POLICE OFFICERS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)

/ ,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.

The Second Department determined the company (Mainco) under contract with the Bronx Center (a nursing home) to maintain an elevator could be liable to plaintiff, who was injured when the elevator fell. The court explained the analytical criteria for liability in tort to third parties stemming from a contract:

Mainco failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it did not have a duty to the plaintiff. ” An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . Further, “a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons . . . where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty” of safe maintenance … .

Here, the maintenance agreement between Mainco and Bronx Center required Mainco to periodically “inspect” the elevator and to “perform the New York City Local Law #10 mandated annual inspection.” The evidence demonstrated that, if there were any problems with the elevator, Bronx Center called Mainco, and Mainco inspected the elevator to determine and report on the cause of the problem. The evidence further indicated that if the cause of the problem was not a repair covered by the maintenance contract, Mainco issued a repair proposal, and would perform the repair upon acceptance of its proposal. Under these circumstances, Mainco failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it did not assume a duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of that duty. Fajardo v Mainco El. & Elec. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06678, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT, ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)

/

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner should not have been granted summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Under the NYC Administrative Code the property owner had a duty to keep the sidewalk clear of ice and snow. The evidence submitted by defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the snow and ice or that he did not create the hazard by efforts to remove snow and ice:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 imposes a duty upon property owners to maintain the sidewalk adjacent to their property, and shifts tort liability to such owners for the failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, including the negligent failure to remove snow and ice … . However, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 does not impose strict liability upon the property owner, and the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that an owner is liable … . Thus, to prevail on his summary judgment motion, the defendant was required to establish that he neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … .

Here, in support of his motion, the defendant submitted evidence which included his own deposition testimony. The defendant’s deposition testimony indicated that while he regularly cleared snow from the sidewalk in front of his building during the winter months, he had no specific recollection of what days it snowed during February 2013, or what snow removal efforts he undertook during that month. Kabir v Budhu, 2016 NY Slip Op 06682, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined a sex offender’s petition to terminate his strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) should have been granted:

… [T]he State … failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had “serious difficulty in controlling” himself from committing sex offenses within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i). The only evidence in the record was that, while the appellant had a long history of committing sex offenses, the appellant had not committed any offense since 2002, had complied with all of his SIST requirements, and had been successful in treatment, where he learned and used skills and modalities to help him control himself from engaging in criminal sexual conduct … . Matter of State of New York v (Anonymous), 2016 NY Slip Op 06717, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MEMTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS.

The Second Department determined the insurer’s disclaimer was ineffective against the injured plaintiffs. The policy required that the insured, here the snow removal contractor (Florite), notify the insurer of any lawsuit by an injured party. The insured did not notify the insurer of the plaintiffs’ suit. After the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment, the plaintiffs notified the insurer. The insurer disclaimed coverage based solely on the insured’s failure to notify it, but did not disclaim based upon any flaw in the plaintiffs’ notification. In this situation, a disclaimer must address any flaws in both the insured’s and the injured plaintiffs’ notification:

Provisions of an insurance policy requiring an insured to provide notice of an occurrence or suit as soon as practicable have been uniformly interpreted to require that notice be given within a reasonable time under all the circumstances … . Where the required notice of suit is not provided by the insured, but rather by the injured party, the insurer’s notice of disclaimer must address with specificity the grounds for disclaiming coverage applicable to the injured party as well as the insured, “because notice of an occurrence by the injured party constitutes prima facie compliance with the notice requirements of the policy and, if unchallenged, relieves the insured of its contractual duty to provide proper notice” … .

Here, notice of the underlying action was not provided by Florite, but was provided directly by the plaintiffs in September 2010. In its subsequent notice of disclaimer, however, the insurer addressed only Florite’s failure to provide notice of the underlying action, and did not directly address the notice provided by the plaintiffs.  Pollack v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06693, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (DISCLAIMER, INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS)/DISCLAIMERS (INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS)

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