Brown v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

269 A.D.2d 803, 703 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1698

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 803 (Brown 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

Brown v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 269 A.D.2d 803, 703 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant Petrone and Petrone, P. C. and the cross motion of defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCM) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. NYCM established that its conduct was not “in [804]*804gross disregard of the insured’s interests” (Jonas v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 244 AD2d 916, 917; see, Pavia v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 445, 453-454, rearg denied 83 NY2d 779). In any event, NYCM cured any breach of the insurance contract by moving to vacate the default judgment entered against the insured. We have considered the remaining contentions of plaintiff and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Sir kin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant Petrone and Petrone, P. C. and the cross motion of defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCM) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. NYCM established that its conduct was not “in [804]*804gross disregard of the insured’s interests” (Jonas v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 244 AD2d 916, 917; see, Pavia v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 445, 453-454, rearg denied 83 NY2d 779). In any event, NYCM cured any breach of the insurance contract by moving to vacate the default judgment entered against the insured. We have considered the remaining contentions of plaintiff and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Sir kin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 803, 703 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack