april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL <strong>15</strong>, <strong>2008</strong> _______________________ CLERK 30
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3402 ExxonMobil Corporation, Index 603471/06 Plaintiff-Appellant, -against- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., Defendants-Respondents. _________________________ Howrey LLP, Washington, DC (Jeffrey M. Lenser, of the District of Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Chicago, IL (Laura S. McKay, of the State of Illinois Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents. _________________________ Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered June 5, 2007, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that the underlying product liability claims against plaintiff constituted multiple occurrences under the insurance policies at issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs. An “occurrence” is defined in the policies as “an accident, an event or a continuous repeated exposure to conditions which result in personal injury or property damage, provided all damages arising out of such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from each premises location of the Assured shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence.” This does not reflect an intention of the parties to aggregate individual claims for the purpose of subjecting them 31
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35 and 36: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70: interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 77 and 78: leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80: in the first degree. After being de
Page 81 and 82:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 83 and 84:
decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86:
panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?