After nine successful years, Bowitch & Coffey is closing its doors. Starting August 1, 2021, Gary Bowitch and Dan Coffey will be practicing law in their own law firms and will continue to provide clients with the same high quality legal services in their areas of expertise. Their new contact information is:


Gary S. Bowitch

Attorney at Law

13 Willow Street

Castleton, NY 12033

Phone: 518-527-2232

Email: gbowitch@bowitchlaw.com

Bowitch Law New Website

Daniel Coffey

Coffey Law PLLC

17 Elk Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-813-9500

Email: Dan@coffeylawny.com

Coffey Law New Website

Court Dismisses Claim by Property Owner Against Municipality

Court dismisses claim by property owner against municipality that sent waste to a landfill

A Fulton County judge granted our motion to dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Village of Northville.  Plaintiff was the current owner of property located in the Village.  The property had previously been used as a landfill. 

Read more...

“AntiSubrogation Rule” Does Not Bar Indemnification Claim

[OK – let me warn you in advance that this one is confusing.]   The City of Johnstown, NY, contracted with Luizzi to do some road paving work.  Luizzi had three existing insurance policies: (a) a CGL policy; (b) an automobile policy; and (c) an umbrella policy.  In addition, in order to do the work for the City, Luizzi obtained a special owners and contractors protective liability policy (“OCP”).  This fourth policy only named the City as an insured (Luizzi was not a named insured under the OCP policy).  All four policies were written by Harleysville.  Mr. Pesta was an employee of Luizzi and was severely injured (his legs were amputated) when he was struck by a dump truck operated by another Luizzi employee.  Pesta sued the City [1]  for his injuries.  The City brought a third-party indemnification claim against Luizzi.

Read more...

Subrogation Action Does Not Carry Over to Tortfeasor’s Ex-Wife

Husband (“H”) and wife (“W”) went through a bitter divorce, which involved a court proceeding.  H argued that a townhouse complex he owned in his name was his alone and that his wife was not entitled to share in its value.  The Court overseeing the divorce disagreed, and ruled that a townhouse was part of the “marital property” to which W would share.   Tragically, H subsequently used explosives to blow up the townhouse, killing himself in the process.

Read more...

Black Sheep Web Design set this site apart from the flock