Buy for Less Wine & Liquors, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance

63 A.D.2d 976, 405 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12039
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 12, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 976 (Buy for Less Wine & Liquors, Inc. v. Commercial Union 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
Buy for Less Wine & Liquors, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance, 63 A.D.2d 976, 405 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

In an action on an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 4, 1977, which denied its motion for renewal (which Special Term denominated a motion for reargument) of its cross motion to strike defendant’s answer because of defendant’s failure to respond to interrogatories. (By order of the same court, dated July 29, 1977, the cross motion was denied and, on defendant’s motion to vacate, the court struck certain interrogatories.) Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion to renew granted and, upon renewal, cross motion to strike defendant’s answer granted, unless defendant responds to Interrogatories Nos. 4b, 5, 6f, 7g, 10, 13b and 13c. Defendant’s time to respond to the said interrogatories is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. In the event defendant complies, then, upon renewal, plaintiff’s cross motion denied. In an action on a fire insurance policy, investigation reports of experts employed by the insurer are not material prepared for litigation (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]) and are subject to disclosure, unless (as is not the case here) the insurer had previously rejected the claim or had made a firm decision to do so (see Mold Maintenance Serv. v General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 56 AD2d 134; Millen Ind. v American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 37 AD2d 817). Martuscello, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tayler v. Travelers Insurance
183 F.R.D. 67 (N.D. New York, 1998)
Landmark Insurance v. Beau Rivage Restaurant, Inc.
121 A.D.2d 98 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Westhampton Adult Home, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa.
105 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Hawley v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
90 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Insurance
91 F.R.D. 420 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Pasquantino v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
73 A.D.2d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.2d 976, 405 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buy-for-less-wine-liquors-inc-v-commercial-union-insurance-nyappdiv-1978.