Case Name: Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, as Successor to Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant-Respondent, v. Stinnes Corporation, Respondent-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-01-18
Citations: 268 A.D.2d 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, as Successor to Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant-Respondent, v Stinnes Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 268
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, as Successor to Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant-Respondent, v Stinnes Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.
[700 NYS2d 818]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered February 22, 1999, which, on the court's own motion, dismissed plaintiffs complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3001, for want of a justiciable controversy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Considering all of the circumstances of this case, we find that the dismissal of this declaratory judgment action for want of a justiciable controversy (see, CPLR 3001) constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see, Cox v J.D. Realty Assocs., 217 AD2d 179, 182). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.