Appalachian Insurance Company v. General Electric Company, 3883.

Decision Date15 June 2004
Docket Number3883.
Citation8 A.D.3d 109,2004 NY Slip Op 05150,778 N.Y.S.2d 494
PartiesAPPALACHIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent, and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

A court may, in the exercise of its discretion, vacate its own order "for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]). GE plausibly argues that if it had been aware the issue of coverage for losses incurred pursuant to administrative agency orders was being considered by a California appellate court, it would never have included the California sites in the list of those voluntarily dismissed. While GE's counsel probably should have been aware of the pending California case when the dismissal order was entered, she did promptly notify the IAS court after learning of that ruling, and requested reinstatement of the claims at issue. Appellants have not indicated how they were prejudiced by reinstatement of these claims, which amounted to only 3 of the 509 sites included in the voluntary dismissal exhibit. It does not appear that any discovery or deposition schedule was disrupted during the period between initial dismissal of the claims and their actual reinstatement.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Arnav Indus., Inc. v., Index No. 13965/1990
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 23, 2014
    ...Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68 (2003); Goldman v. Cotter, 10 A.D.3d 289, 293 (1st Dep't 2004); Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 8 A.D.3d 109, 109 (1st Dep't 2004); Bay Crest Assn., Inc. v. Paar, 99 A.D.3d 744, 746 (2d Dep't 2012), A new action for fraud would be required to vacate a sat......
  • Henderson-Jones v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2016
    ...N.E.2d 1156 (2003) ; Goldman v. Cotter, 10 A.D.3d 289, 293, 781 N.Y.S.2d 28 (1st Dep't 2004) ; Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 8 A.D.3d 109, 109, 778 N.Y.S.2d 494 (1st Dep't 2004). Plaintiffs, however, seek damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for defendants' violations of feder......
  • Henderson-Jones v. City of N.Y., Index No. 115360/2006
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2016
    ...Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68 (2003); Goldman v. Cotter, 10 A.D.3d 289, 293 (1st Dep't 2004); Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 8 A.D.3d 109, 109 (1st Dep't 2004). Plaintiffs, however, seek damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for defendants' violations of federal law. Defendant City m......
  • Andersen v. Young & Rubicam, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2013
    ...Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68 (2003); Goldman v. Cotter, 10 N.Y.3d 289, 293 (1st Dep't 2004); Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 8 A.D. 3d 109 (1st Dep't 2004); Bay Crest Assn., Inc. v. Paar, 99 A.D. 3d 744, 746 (2d Dep't 2012), plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficient reason for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT