DeSanto Construction Corp. v. Royal Insurance of AmericaDeSanto Construction Corp. v. Royal Insurance of America
In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action for contractual indemnification and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered December 15, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the cross motion and substituting therefor a provision granting the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend or indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action.
Robert Maheu, an employee of the plaintiff, DeSanto Construction Corp. (hereinafter DeSanto), was injured while working on an elevator at a Long Island Railroad (hereinafter the LIRR) station. Maheu brought a negligence action against the LIRR, which in turn commenced a third-party action against DeSanto for contractual indemnification and to recover damages for breach of contract, based on DeSanto’s failure to procure insurance on behalf of the LIRR. DeSanto then commenced a second third-party action against its insurance carrier, the defendant, Royal Insurance Company (hereinafter Royal), alleging, inter alia, that Royal breached its agreement to insure, indemnify, and defend the LIRR pursuant to various insurance policies, and that Royal should therefore be required to provide insurance coverage for the accident. Royal moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on breach of contract. By order dated April 1, 1996, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied Royal’s motion. This Court modified that order and dismissed the causes of action based on breach of contract. We concluded that DeSanto was collaterally
Thereafter, in February 1998 DeSanto commenced the present action for a judgment declaring that Royal was obligated to defend and indemnify it in the third-party action commenced by the LIRR. DeSanto moved for summary judgment and Royal cross-moved for the same relief. The Supreme Court denied their respective motions.
The doctrine of res judicata bars DeSanto’s present action. This doctrine “precludes litigation of matters that could or should have been raised in a prior proceeding between the parties arising from the same factual grouping, transaction, or series of transactions” (Matter of New York State Dorm. Auth. v Board of Trustees,