AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. PULLINI WATER SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Pullini Water Services, Inc., and Pullini Water Main Sewer Contractors, Inc., in the underlying action entitled Shepp v City of New York, pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 41613/99.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the defendants Pullini Water Services, Inc., and Pullini Water Main Sewer Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Pullini), in the underlying action based on their lack of cooperation ( see All-state Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 605, 606). The plaintiff established its entitlement to a default judgment against Pullini based on Pullini's failure to answer or appear in this action ( see CPLR 3215 [f]). The plaintiff established, through affidavits of its employee and of private investigators, as well as written correspondence, that it made diligent efforts to secure Pullini's cooperation, that the efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain that cooperation, and that Pullini willfully obstructed the plaintiffs defense of the underlying action ( see Utica First Ins. Co. v Arken, Inc., 18 AD3d 644, 645). Given that the plaintiff commenced this action within one week of its last efforts to obtain Pullini's cooperation, the Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with Insurance Law § 3420 (d) ( see generally Pennsylvania Lumber-mans Mut. Ins. Co. v D Sons Constr. Corp., 18 AD3d 843; Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v Pistilli, 16 AD3d 477; Generali-U.S. Branch v Rothschild, 295 AD2d 236, 237-238).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TRAV. IND. v. PUL. WAT. SER
(Dec 26, 2006)