Admiral Indem. Co. v Delins

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Admiral Indem. Co. v Delins 2012 NY Slip Op 30708(U) March 19, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101124/11 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. - SCANNED ON 312312012 [* 1] - + SUPREME COURT OF THE ,STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YQRK COUNTY PRESENT: HON., PAUL ,WOOTEN Just ADMIRAL INDEMNli*Y COMPANY NSiO 155 PERRY STREET WFIDOMINIUY, 101124111 WI%'NO. Plalntlff, I [* 2] In motion sequence number 001, Dblinq contends that the action should be di$missed As against Pfer b6c @theCondBhiriiu Motion, exhibit C). The ielevant Sectiqn of th6 b y - l a w states: I ARTICLE VII. INSIJRANCE ,ANa.INSvRAN,@,E TE!JSTEE 8 . . t I All policies Of physical damage insurance shqll Gontain 1 [* 3] motion sequence number 001 Motion Sequence 001 CPLR 321 1 [a][7] provides: (a) Mdtion to dismiss cause of actipri, A party may move fqr judgment dismissing or19or more Fause? of actibn asserted agqinst Him on the ground that: CPLR 3211(a)(l),t (BronxW e Knolls v I [* 4] pleadings a liberal construction, takes the allegations of the cprhphint 3s true, and pravidbs plaintiff the behefit of evefy po$dible'in'fer'qnce(GOSAen V Mutua/ Life Ins. CO. of 314, 326 [2002]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action may be granted only where the complaint utterly fails to state aqy cognizable cause of action (Salles v Chsse Manhattan Bank, 300 AD2d 226, 228 [ l s t Dept 20021). Any evidentiary material Sbbrnitted by the defendapt mu$t show thgt a fact as claimed order to defeat a pre-qnswer (BQnnie & Co. FaShions, Inc. v the plaintiff is eQt a fact at $11; othet'wise, , I1 1 ' I r , [* 5] by-laws are subordinate to the terms of the insura& policy itgelf (q7 02cj 604 I I s t DeiSt ( h a defendant's sum by-laws only auftwrire or 8ndarqp w W e r of subrogation (2007 NY $lip Op 32388: *7 [sup Ct, New York County 2@8]), [* 6] Motion Sequence 002 "The proponent of a etltitlement to judgment as material issues of fact from the c W ' (Santiago v Fils{ ,, I. I 8 , '. 8 . '2006][internal quotation marki and' citation omittbd]). h e burden then shifts to the thotiOp'$ ' ,. ' + , < I ' , , , ' , ,, 18 . ' I , I . A , , [* 7] cross-claims asserted 4s a missed as agai to said defendaht costs; and it is further, the complaint and d l crwxlgirns and it is further, Nstice 9f Entry Upom a

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.