| Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig. |
| 2014 NYSlipOp 06859 [121 AD3d 458] |
| October 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of East 51st Street Crane Collapse
Litigation. East 51st Street Development Company, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v Lincoln General Insurance Company, Respondent, and Interstate Fire and Casualty Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
Lawrence, Worden, Rainis & Bard, P.C., Melville (Roger B. Lawrence of counsel), for appellant.
Ruberry Stalmack & Garvey LLC, Chicago, IL (Richard M. Kuntz of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 4, 2013, which granted the motion of defendant Lincoln General Insurance Company (Lincoln) for leave to amend its answer and cross claim against defendant Interstate Fire and Casualty Company (Interstate), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion was properly granted as Lincoln's proposed amended answer and cross claim was not "palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). Contrary to Interstate's contention that this Court declared in its February 5, 2013 order that Interstate has no obligation to pay any costs incurred in the defense of plaintiff East 51st Development Company LLC in underlying litigation and dismissed Lincoln's cross claim against Interstate seeking to recover such costs, this Court explicitly held that the Lincoln and Interstate policies are both primary and refused to dismiss [*2]Lincoln's cross claim against Interstate seeking to recover costs incurred in the defense of plaintiff (see Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 103 AD3d 401, 402 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.