Bhugra v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance

94 A.D.3d 563, 942 N.Y.S.2d 342
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 563 (Bhugra v. Massachusetts 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
Bhugra v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance, 94 A.D.3d 563, 942 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered February 1, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross motion of defendants Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company, Centre Life Insurance Company, Centre Solutions, and Zurich American Insurance Company (the MCIC defendants) to compel plaintiff to accept service of its answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff had no basis to reject the MCIC defendants’ answer, which was timely served in accordance with the written stipulation that was signed by plaintiffs prior counsel and counsel for the MCIC defendants (see CPLR 2104; see also La Marque v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 120 AD2d 572 [1986]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Bhugra v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance
105 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.3d 563, 942 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bhugra-v-massachusetts-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2012.