Plaintiffs seek to avoid summary judgment by claiming a need for more discovery. They did not affirmatively demonstrate mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence, or that there was a "likelihood" that there is relevant evidence in defendant insurer's exclusive knowledge (see, Finnerty v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
ATOMERGIC CHEMETALS CORP. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM. CO.
193 A.D.2d 551 (1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 706
Atomergic Chemetals Corp. et al., Appellants, v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Arthur Einhorn, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 25, 1993
May 25, 1993
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.