Banner Candy Manufacturing Corp. v. Great Northern Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banner Candy Manufacturing Corp. v. Great Northern Insurance

262 A.D.2d 513, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7022

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 513 (Banner Candy Manufacturing Corp. v. Great Northern Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banner Candy Manufacturing Corp. v. Great Northern Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 513, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated March 31, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant satisfied its burden of proving that the plaintiff’s loss was within the scope of a policy exclusion (see, Goldman & Sons v Hanover Ins. Co., 80 NY2d 986, 987). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issues of fact. Santucci, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated March 31, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant satisfied its burden of proving that the plaintiff’s loss was within the scope of a policy exclusion (see, Goldman & Sons v Hanover Ins. Co., 80 NY2d 986, 987). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issues of fact. Santucci, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 513, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banner-candy-manufacturing-corp-v-great-northern-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack