Best v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Best v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

29 A.D.3d 503, 813 N.Y.S.2d 673

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 503 (Best v. Progressive Casualty 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

Best v. Progressive Casualty Insurance, 29 A.D.3d 503, 813 N.Y.S.2d 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover the amount of an unsatisfied judgment against the [504]*504defendant’s insured, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 28, 2005, 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 defendant insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to serve it with a copy of the unsatisfied judgment they obtained against the defendant’s insured, with notice of entry, 30 days before they commenced this direct action against it, as required by Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2). Compliance with the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) is a condition precedent to maintenance of a direct action under that statute (see McNamara v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 295, 299 [1957]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover the amount of an unsatisfied judgment against the [504]*504defendant’s insured, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 28, 2005, 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 defendant insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to serve it with a copy of the unsatisfied judgment they obtained against the defendant’s insured, with notice of entry, 30 days before they commenced this direct action against it, as required by Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2). Compliance with the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) is a condition precedent to maintenance of a direct action under that statute (see McNamara v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 295, 299 [1957]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 503, 813 N.Y.S.2d 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack