Brody v. Chenango Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brody v. Chenango Mutual Insurance

259 A.D.2d 578, 686 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2476

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 578 (Brody v. Chenango Mutual 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

Brody v. Chenango Mutual Insurance, 259 A.D.2d 578, 686 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover under a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated March 24, 1998, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant insurance company issued a temporary insurance binder to them on August 30, 1994, which was still in effect when their property was damaged by fire on November 12, 1994. However, the papers which the plaintiffs claim to have bound the defendant to provide temporary coverage did not specify the “effective date of coverage” (Insurance Law § 3404 [h]), or indicate its term or duration. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon the ground that the insurance application did not constitute an enforceable binder. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover under a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated March 24, 1998, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant insurance company issued a temporary insurance binder to them on August 30, 1994, which was still in effect when their property was damaged by fire on November 12, 1994. However, the papers which the plaintiffs claim to have bound the defendant to provide temporary coverage did not specify the “effective date of coverage” (Insurance Law § 3404 [h]), or indicate its term or duration. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon the ground that the insurance application did not constitute an enforceable binder. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 578, 686 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brody-v-chenango-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack