Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company

Decision Date11 April 2005
Docket Number2002-06455.
Citation17 A.D.3d 434,2005 NY Slip Op 02820,793 N.Y.S.2d 452
PartiesANDREA PRYOR, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,

Ordered that so much of the motion as seeks clarification of the decision and order dated November 17, 2003, is granted, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the decision and order dated November 17, 2003, in the above-entitled action is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

In an action to recover damages for breach of a title insurance policy and for a declaration that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff for legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action and a related action entitled Pryor v Dinan, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under index No. 01663/99, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated June 12, 2002, as granted the defendant's motion for leave to reargue the plaintiff's prior cross motion for summary judgment which was determined in an order of the same court dated September 28, 2001, and upon reargument, inter alia, denied the motion for summary judgment and dismissed those portions of the complaint seeking a declaration that the defendant is obligated to defend the plaintiff in the related action, indemnify her for legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred in that action, and indemnify her for legal fees, costs, and expenses in this action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for leave to reargue is denied, the order dated September 28, 2001, is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of a judgment in accordance herewith.

The plaintiff is the owner of certain real property, the title to which is insured by a policy issued by the defendant. After a dispute arose between the plaintiff and an adjacent property owner concerning the ownership of certain property near a shared border, the plaintiff wrote the defendant and demanded that it provide legal representation to defend her title to the disputed property. The defendant disclaimed coverage on the ground that the disputed property was not within the property described in the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff and, therefore, the title to the same was not insured under the policy. The plaintiff thereafter commenced an action against the adjacent property owner to quiet title...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Beach 104 St. Realty Inc. v. Kisslev-Mazel Realty LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 32421 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/8/2009), 25569/07
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 Octubre 2009
    ...party, as here, successive opportunities to present arguments not previously advanced (citations omitted)." Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434 (2nd Dept. 2005); Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374 (2nd Dept. 2004). Here, defendants have failed to make the requi......
  • Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Cigna
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • 2 Febrero 2021
    ...; Gellert & Rodner v Gem Community Mgt., Inc. , 20 A.D.3d 388, 797 NYS 2d 316 [2d Dept 2005] ; Pryor v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co. , 17 A.D.3d 434, 793 NYS 2d 452 [2d Dept 2005] ; Amato v Lord & Taylor, Inc. , 10 A.D.3d 374, 781 NYS 2d 125 [2d Dept 2004] ; Frisenda v X Large Enters. , 2......
  • Codoner v. Bobby's Bus Co. Inc
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 30 Junio 2010
    ...Giovanniello v. Carolina Wholesale Office Mach. Co., Inc., 29 A.D.3d 737 (2nd Dept. 2006); Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434 (2nd Dept. 2005). Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374 (2nd Dept. 2004). It is within the court's discretion to grant leave to reargue w......
  • People v. Merly, 3922-2014.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 7 Marzo 2016
    ...548 [2nd Dept.2011] ; Mazinov v. Rella, 79 A.D.3d 979, 980, 912 N.Y.S.2d 896 [2nd Dept.2010] ; Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 435–436, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2nd Dept.2005] ; McGill v. Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593, 594, 691 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2nd Dept.1999] ). In other words, “It......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part XXXVI Motions To Reargue And Renew Motions To Reargue And Renew
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association The Legal Writer - Drafting NY Civil-Litigation Documentation
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 16:320, at 16-37 (citing Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d at 990, 290 N.Y.S.2d at 915, 238 N.E.2d at 319; Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 436, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452, 454 (2d Dep’t 2005)).[1620] . CPLR 2221(d)(3).[1621] . Id.; Barr et al., supra note 1, § 16:321, at 16-37 (citing Z......

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