Blanchard v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blanchard v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

300 A.D.2d 1075, 751 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 1075 (Blanchard v. New York Central Mutual Fire 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

Blanchard v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 300 A.D.2d 1075, 751 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered April 25, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company is obligated to defend her in the underlying action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant New York Central Mutual Insurance Company (New York Central) seeking summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that New York Central is obligated to defend her in the underlying action. Contrary to New York Central’s contention, plaintiff’s delay in giving notice of the incident did not vitiate the insurance policy issued by New York Central to plaintiff (see Zugnoni v Travelers Ins. Cos., 179 AD2d 1033, 1033-1034). We have examined New York Central’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit (see Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 293-294; Sullivan v Breese, 160 AD2d 997, [1076]*1076998-999; cf. Grayes v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261, 262-263). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered April 25, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company is obligated to defend her in the underlying action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant New York Central Mutual Insurance Company (New York Central) seeking summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that New York Central is obligated to defend her in the underlying action. Contrary to New York Central’s contention, plaintiff’s delay in giving notice of the incident did not vitiate the insurance policy issued by New York Central to plaintiff (see Zugnoni v Travelers Ins. Cos., 179 AD2d 1033, 1033-1034). We have examined New York Central’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit (see Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 293-294; Sullivan v Breese, 160 AD2d 997, [1076]*1076998-999; cf. Grayes v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261, 262-263). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 1075, 751 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack