liberty motion in New York

2016Co. , 21 AD3d at 781 ).

2016Co. , 21 AD3d at 781 ).

2013Liberty persuasively argues that this Court’s decision in Linarello v City Univ. of N.Y. ( 6 AD3d 192 [1st Dept 2004]) requires that there be an express written agreement between Ferrara and Green for Green to be an additional insured (id. at 195).

2013Liberty persuasively argues that this Court’s decision in Linarello v City Univ. of N.Y. ( 6 AD3d 192 [1st Dept 2004]) requires that there be an express written agreement between Ferrara and Green for Green to be an additional insured (id. at 195).

2013As Liberty failed to meet its prima facie burden with regard to any of the causes of action contained in the complaint, the Supreme Court properly denied Liberty’s motion, without regard to the sufficiency of the papers offered in opposition (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ.

2013As Liberty failed to meet its prima facie burden with regard to any of the causes of action contained in the complaint, the Supreme Court properly denied Liberty’s motion, without regard to the sufficiency of the papers offered in opposition (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ.

1965(Vide Gielski v. State of New York, 3 Misc 2d 578; McMahon v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 1004 , affd. 261 App. Div. 879 ; also Haas v. Brown, 282 App. Div. 916 .) The third-party defendant cannot be prejudiced by the exercise of this discretion since it actively participated in the trial and offered proof to substantiate its claimed defense of prejudice.

1956(McMahon v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 1004 , affd. 261 App. Div. 879 .) The circumstances of this case together with the purpose of the enactment of subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act require that the claimant be allowed to file his claim.

1965(Vide Gielski v. State of New York, 3 Misc 2d 578; McMahon v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 1004 , affd. 261 App. Div. 879 ; also Haas v. Brown, 282 App. Div. 916 .) The third-party defendant cannot be prejudiced by the exercise of this discretion since it actively participated in the trial and offered proof to substantiate its claimed defense of prejudice.

1956(McMahon v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 1004 , affd. 261 App. Div. 879 .) The circumstances of this case together with the purpose of the enactment of subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act require that the claimant be allowed to file his claim.

2024Liberty appeals. "'Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release'" ( Wei Qiang Huang v Llerena-Salazar , 222 AD3d 1033 , 1033, quoting Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276 ).

2018The Appellate Division subsequently reversed, granting Liberty's motion ( 143 A.D.3d 146 , 38 N.Y.S.3d 1 [2016] ).

2018The Appellate Division subsequently reversed, granting Liberty's motion ( 143 A.D.3d 146 , 38 N.Y.S.3d 1 [2016] ).

2016The record established that Liberty granted plaintiff an adjournment of the hearing, did not set a subsequent date, and never sought to reschedule the hearing (see Belton v Liberty Lines Tr., 3 AD3d 334 [1st Dept 2004]; Vargas v City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d 585 [2d Dept 2009]).

2016The record established that Liberty granted plaintiff an adjournment of the hearing, did not set a subsequent date, and never sought to reschedule the hearing (see Belton v Liberty Lines Tr., 3 AD3d 334 [1st Dept 2004]; Vargas v City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d 585 [2d Dept 2009]).

2009Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that Liberty is not obligated to provide coverage for the loss sustained by the plaintiffs pursuant to the homeowners insurance policy issued by it (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]).

2009Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that Liberty is not obligated to provide coverage for the loss sustained by the plaintiffs pursuant to the homeowners insurance policy issued by it (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]).

2006Rayano, the supervisor of the plumbing contractor, was led to the construction area where the frozen pipe was located by the same Turner employee who specifically directed him to immediately inspect the pipe as it was flooding the school (see Chelsea Assoc., LLC v Laquila-Pinnacle, supra; Turner Constr.

2003Further, the Board’s reliance on Matter of Druziak v Town of Amsterdam, Cranesville Fire Dept. ( 209 AD2d 870 , lv denied 85 NY2d 809 ) — to find Liberty to be the proper carrier for the 1996 claim due to its payment of medical bills submitted and its failure to check its own files — is misplaced.

1999The alleged violations of OSHA standards cited by plaintiffs do not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Greenwood v Shearson, Lehman & Hutton, 238 AD2d 311, 313 ; Williams v White Haven Mem.

1974Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F. 2d 12 , supra [the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment due process right to essential fairness]; Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 [Fla.] [Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause] with Juelich v. United States, 342 F. 2d 29 [the right to a fair trial demands representation by counsel]).

1974McCann, 317 U. S. 269 [correlative right of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel]; United States v. Plattner, 330 F. 2d 271 [implicit in Sixth Amendment rights, and protected under the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment due process]; compare United States ex rel.

1974McCann, 317 U. S. 269 [correlative right of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel]; United States v. Plattner, 330 F. 2d 271 [implicit in Sixth Amendment rights, and protected under the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment due process]; compare United States ex rel.

1974Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F. 2d 12 , supra [the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment due process right to essential fairness]; Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 [Fla.] [Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause] with Juelich v. United States, 342 F. 2d 29 [the right to a fair trial demands representation by counsel]).

1974Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F. 2d 12 , supra [the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment due process right to essential fairness]; Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 [Fla.] [Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause] with Juelich v. United States, 342 F. 2d 29 [the right to a fair trial demands representation by counsel]).

1965(Vide Gielski v. State of New York, 3 Misc 2d 578; McMahon v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 1004 , affd. 261 App. Div. 879 ; also Haas v. Brown, 282 App. Div. 916 .) The third-party defendant cannot be prejudiced by the exercise of this discretion since it actively participated in the trial and offered proof to substantiate its claimed defense of prejudice.