McColgan v. Brewer
| Decision Date | 15 July 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | John McCOLGAN, Appellant, v. Donald BREWER et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) John McColgan, Appellant, v. Rothe Engineering & Construction, Defendant, and Chicago Title Insurance Company, Respondent. (Action No. 2.). |
75 A.D.3d 876
John McCOLGAN, Appellant,
v.
Donald BREWER et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.)
John McColgan, Appellant,
v.
Rothe Engineering & Construction, Defendant,
and
Chicago Title Insurance Company, Respondent. (Action No. 2.).
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
July 15, 2010.
Law Office of Michael G. Dowd, New York City (Niall Mac Giollabhui of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobitz & Gubits, L.L.P., Walden (David Gandin of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., MALONE JR., STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered August 20, 2009 in Ulster County, which, among other things, partially denied plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended consolidated complaint.
Plaintiff owns a 10-acre parcel of land in the Town of Rosendale, Ulster County, to which access from Route 32 depends upon a right-of-way over adjoining properties. Prior to
Plaintiff commenced legal actions against various defendants, including an action against Chicago Title for breach of contract. Plaintiff subsequently moved to consolidate the actions and for permission to serve an amended consolidated complaint that included, among others, a new cause of action for negligence against Chicago Title and Abbacy Abstract. As relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint insofar as it included a negligence cause of action against Chicago Title. Plaintiff now appeals and we affirm.
The obligation of an insurer with respect to a title insurance policy is defined by the terms of the policy itself ( see Aubuchon Realty Co. v. Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 295 A.D.2d 725, 727, 743 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2002];
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swergold v. Cuomo
...was not aggrieved by the underlying judgment. Accordingly, this Court dismissed Hoover's appeal therefrom (Matter of Hoover v. DiNapoli, 75 A.D.3d at 876, 905 N.Y.S.2d 685). In the interim, in June 2010, plaintiffs and petitioners collectively moved to consolidate the declaratory judgment a......
-
Dinstber v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...N.Y.S.2d 716, 976 N.E.2d 244 [2012],lv. denied and dismissed21 N.Y.3d 909, 966 N.Y.S.2d 359, 988 N.E.2d 887 [2013];McColgan v. Brewer, 75 A.D.3d 876, 878, 906 N.Y.S.2d 353 [2010] ). ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.ROSE, J.P., McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.,...
-
McColgan v. Brewer
...against it. The underlying facts of this case are more fully set forth in our prior decisions (84 A.D.3d 1573, 923 N.Y.S.2d 276 [2011], 75 A.D.3d 876, 906 N.Y.S.2d 353 [2010] ). Briefly, in April 2005, plaintiff purchased property that included a landlocked 10–acre parcel of land in the Tow......
-
Putney v. People
...abuse of the court's discretion here ( see Davis v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 86 A.D.3d 907, 908, 928 N.Y.S.2d 377 [2011]; McColgan v. Brewer, 75 A.D.3d 876, 878, 906 N.Y.S.2d 353 [2010]; Alaimo v. Town of Fort Ann, 63 A.D.3d 1481, 1484, 883 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2009] ). We also agree with Supreme Cour......