Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

9991-Miller & Wrubel, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent v. Todtman

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 7, 2013

9991-MILLER & WRUBEL, P.C., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TODTMAN, NACHAMIE, SPIZZ & JOHNS, P.C., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Miller & Wrubel, P.C. v Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 7, 2013 Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered May 8, 2012, awarding plaintiff law firm damages, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered May 3, 2012, which, after a non-jury trial, found, inter alia, that plaintiff was entitled to payment of its accrued malpractice defense fees as a third-party beneficiary to the insurance agreement between defendant law firm and its malpractice insurance carrier, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from above order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the instant action as it was an incidental beneficiary to its client's malpractice insurance policy with a nonparty insurer (see generally State of Cal. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v Sherman & Sterling, 95 NY2d 427 [2000]; Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 NY2d 38 [1985]). There was no language in the subject insurance policy that identified plaintiff as an intended third-party beneficiary of such policy, or that indicated that plaintiff would be the lone third party that would have an interest in the retention amount sought to be paid under the insurance agreement (see Artwear, Inc. v Hughes, 202 AD2d 76, 81-82 [1st Dept 1994]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 7, 2013

CLERK

20130507

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.