From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reliance Ins. Co. v. American Bankers Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-00704.

Decided April 5, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 5, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida and Cunardi Contracting, Inc., and their separate cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims of the defendant Cunardi Contracting, Inc., to recover damages for breach of contract.

Westermann Hamilton Sheehy Aydelott Keenan, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John F. Hamilton and Stephen J. Gillespie of counsel), for appellants.

Carl Anthony Maio and Adam G. Silverstein, Doylestown, Pa., pro hac vice, for respondent American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida.

Richard A. Gerbino, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent Cunardi Contracting, Inc.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant subcontractor Cunardi Contracting, Inc., and their separate cross motion to dismiss the counterclaims asserted by the defendant subcontractor, since there are disputed issues of fact regarding the defendant subcontractor's alleged breach of the subcontract ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Carpenter's Local Union No. 964 Pension Fund v. Nyack Waterfront Assocs., 226 A.D.2d 494, 495; cf. Solco Plumbing Supply v. SA Contr., 260 A.D.2d 627). Since the liability of a surety is predicated upon a breach of the conditions of the bond, the cross motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the subcontractor's surety, the defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, also was properly denied ( see State of New York v. Peerless Insurance Co., 135 A.D.2d 143, 148).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reliance Ins. Co. v. American Bankers Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Reliance Ins. Co. v. American Bankers Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., appellants, v. AMERICAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 354

Citing Cases

Stipe v. Harbor House Owners Corp.

To have a duty giving rise to liability for a dangerous condition on property that it did not create, a party…

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am.

Having failed to advance any argument in its brief regarding the denial of its cross motion, defendant has…