Legal Opinion
Rosier v. Stoeckeler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 13, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLahtinen, J.
*1311In action No. 1, the Rosiers moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability in their Labor Law § 240 cause of action. In action No. 2, Stoeckeler sought, in separate motions, a default judgment against Benson and summary judgment against American Western. American Western cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify and for dismissal of action No. 2 as to it. Supreme Court found factual issues as to the Rosiers’ Labor Law § 240 cause of action and, thus, denied their motion for summary judgment in action No. 1. In action No. 2, Supreme…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Security Mutual Insurance v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Chapman v. SilberNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Ball v. Cascade Tissue Group-New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fabiano v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Kraemer Building Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance CompanyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Vale v. Vermont Mutual Insurance GroupAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Vale v. Vermont Mutual Insurance GroupAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013