Eskenazi v. Mackoul
| Decision Date | 27 April 2010 |
| Citation | 905 N.Y.S.2d 169,72 A.D.3d 1012 |
| Parties | Lynn ESKENAZI, et al., respondents, v. Robert E. MACKOUL, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
72 A.D.3d 1012
Lynn ESKENAZI, et al., respondents,
v.
Robert E. MACKOUL, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 27, 2010.
Sobel, Kelly & Schleier, LLC, Huntington, N.Y. (Curtis Sobel and Kelly Holthusen of counsel), for appellants Robert E. Mackoul, Deborah K. Mackoul, and Hanover Insurance Group.
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Gerard Benvenuto and Sheryl Bruzzese of counsel), for appellant One Beacon Insurance Company.
M. John Pittoni, LLC, Garden City, N.Y., for respondents.
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants Robert E. Mackoul, Deborah K. Mackoul, and Hanover Insurance Group appeal, as limited by their brief, and the defendant One Beacon Insurance Company separately appeals, as limited by its brief and a letter dated November 2, 2009, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated December 11, 2008, as denied those branches of their respective cross motions which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries on a theory of common-law negligence, and which were, in effect, for partial summary judgment limiting the plaintiffs' recovery on so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for injury to property for failure to mitigate damages insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of defendants' respective cross motions which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries on a theory of common-law negligence insofar as asserted against each of them, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the defendants' respective cross motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants Robert E. Mackoul and Deborah K. Mackoul, and their insurance carriers (hereinafter collectively the defendants), inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property allegedly caused by the leaking of petroleum from an underground storage tank located on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
...upon the party guilty of the breach of contract.' ") (quotingHamilton v. McPherson, 28 N.Y. 72, 77 (1863)); Eskenazi v. MacKoul, 905 N.Y.S.2d 169, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (App.Div.2010) ("A party seeking to avail itself of the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages must establish t......
-
Fuisz v. 6 E. 72Nd St. Corp.
...diligent efforts to mitigate its damages, and the extent to which such efforts would have diminished those damages" (Eskenazi v Mackoul, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 [2d Dept 2010]). Although the Blum defendants rely on the fact that plaintiff was paid $301, 430.33 from her insurance company, they ......
-
Fuisz v. 6 E. 72Nd St. Corp.
...not demonstrated plaintiffs lack of diligent efforts to mitigate damages, or to what extent such efforts would have diminished her damages (see id). Therefore, the branch of the defendants' motion as to the failure to mitigate damages defense is denied. M. Cross Claims and Counterclaims Aga......
-
Lindo v. Figeroux & Assocs. (In re Lindo)
...prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. Cornell v. T.V. Dev. Corp., 215 N.E.2d 349, 352 (N.Y. 1966); Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 905 N.Y.S.2d 169, 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010); Hawkins v. City of New York, 470 N.Y.S.2d 420, 421-22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Figeroux did not offer evidence th......