United Med. Assocs., PLLC v. Seneca Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
| Citation | 125 A.D.3d 959,5 N.Y.S.3d 164,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01629 |
| Parties | UNITED MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, PLLC, respondent, et al., plaintiff, v. SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
125 A.D.3d 959
5 N.Y.S.3d 164
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01629
UNITED MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, PLLC, respondent, et al., plaintiff
v.
SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 25, 2015.
Tese & Milner, New York, N.Y. (Michael Milner and Brendan B. Gilmartin of counsel), for appellant.
Hankin & Mazel, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Mark L. Hankin of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify United Medical Associates, PLLC, and Michael Richheimer in an underlying personal injury action entitled Pendola v. United Medical Associates, PLLC, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 1293/09, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), entered January 10, 2014, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment declaring it is not so obligated with respect to United Medical Associates, PLLC, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated May 2, 2013.
ORDERED that the order entered January 10, 2014, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On October 1, 2009, United Medical Associates, PLLC (hereinafter United), and Michael Richheimer (hereinafter together the plaintiffs) commenced the instant action against Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that, pursuant to a commercial general liability insurance policy, the defendant was obligated to defend and indemnify them in an
underlying personal injury action that had been commenced against them. Following the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment declaring that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McHale v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...justification for the failure to submit that information in the first instance (see United Med. Assoc., PLLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 959, 960–961, 5 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 585–586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; Yebo v. Cuadra, 98 A.D.3d 504, 949......
-
Puzhayeva v. City of N.Y.
...motion (see Stratton Oakmont, LLC v. Tomlinson, 149 A.D.3d 790, 791, 51 N.Y.S.3d 186 ; United Med. Assoc., PLLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 959, 961, 5 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Jacobson v. Adler, 119 A.D.3d 902, 902, 989 N.Y.S.2d 898 ). In any event, consideration of the allegedly new facts ......
-
Estate of Castellone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...factual presentation” (Elder v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457 ; see United Med. Assoc., PLLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 959, 961, 5 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Lardo v. Rivlab Transp. Corp., 46 A.D.3d at 759, 848 N.Y.S.2d 337 ). Moreover, a party seeking renewal after the origi......
-
Prudence v. White
...CPLR 2221[e] ; Kamdem–Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc., 133 A.D.3d 828, 829, 21 N.Y.S.3d 154 ; United Med. Assoc., PLLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 959, 960–961, 5 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Okumus v. Living Room Steak House, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 799, 800, 977 N.Y.S.2d 340 ).Here, the Supreme Court provide......