By Richter, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ. 9959. In re New York City AsbestosIndex 190240/17 Litigation Russell Leavitt plf-res, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co. def, Rogers Corporation, def-ap — Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York (Andrew J. Scholz of counsel), for ap — Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 22, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Rogers Corporation’s (Rogers) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting plaintiffs jurisdictional discovery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Although the record before the court was not sufficient to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction over defendant (cf. Mischel v. Safe Haven Enters., LLC, 161 AD3d 696, 697 [1st Dept 2018]), plaintiffs made a “sufficient start” in demonstrating such jurisdiction, and accordingly, jurisdictional discovery is warranted with respect to Rogers (see Avilon Auto. Group v. Leontiev, 168 AD3d 78, 89 [1st Dept 2019]; Robins v. Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 157 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2018]). Additionally, Rogers failed to make a prima facie showing that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff’s injury (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 123 AD3d 498, 499 [1st Dept 2014]). Accordingly, that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ papers in opposition (see Pullman v. Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060, 1063 [2016], citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). We have considered Rogers’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
By Friedman, J.P., Tom, Webber, Gesmer, Oing, JJ. 9978. Chelsea Piers L.P. plf-res, v. Colony Insurance Company def-ap, EPS Iron Works, Inc., def — Melito & Adolfsen, P.C., New York (Michael F. Panayotou of counsel), for Colony Insurance Company, ap — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Craig Rokuson of counsel), for Endurance America Specialty Insurance Company, ap — Monteiro & Fishman LLP, Hempstead (Michael Fishman of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered December 4, 2018, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Colony’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendant Endurance’s motion to the extent it sought a declaration that it is not obligated to indemnify in the underlying action, and granted the motion of plaintiffs, Chelsea Piers L.P. and Chelsea Piers Management Inc. (collectively, Chelsea), for summary judgment to the extent they sought a declaration that Colony is obligated to provide a defense in the underlying action and to reimburse Chelsea for past defense costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The language of the purchase order between EPS, the defendant in the underlying action, and Chelsea made explicit reference to Chelsea and required EPS to add Chelsea as an additional insured on its respective policies by virtue of language stating that contractor EPS’s “general liability insurance shall apply on a primary and non-contributing basis with respect to all protection provided to Chelsea Piers thereunder” (see Christ the King Regional High School v. Zurich Ins. Co. of N. Am., 91 AD3d 806, 807 [2d Dept 2012]; cf. M&M Realty of N.Y., LLC v. Burlington Ins. Co., 170 AD3d 407, 407 [1st Dept 2019]; Clavin v. CAP Equip. Leasing Corp., 156 AD3d 404, 405 [1st Dept 2017]; Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Assoc., 301 AD2d 644, 647 [2d Dept 2003]). To find otherwise “renders a portion of the contract meaningless and fails to read all contractual clauses together contextually” (Nova Cas. v. Harleysville Worchester Ins. Co., 146 AD3d 428, 428 [1st Dept 2017]). This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
