In his motion to vacate the June 2014 order, which dismissed the complaint, plaintiff argued that he was not required to provide the discovery he had been directed to provide, because, in an action brought pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2), the insurer is limited to disclaiming coverage against the insured, and the discovery demanded by defendant concerned the defenses that would have been available to its insured, if the insured had not defaulted, in the underlying...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
