Cabrera v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

288 A.D.2d 415, 733 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11417
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 415 (Cabrera v. Allstate Indemnity Co.) 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
Cabrera v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 288 A.D.2d 415, 733 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 6, 2000, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order vacating his demand for discovery and inspection, and denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action, and to strike the answer for failure to comply with discovery demands.

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

The plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant insurer following the theft of his automobile. The defendant denied the claim, citing the plaintiff’s failure to submit certain documents relevant to the claim and to cooperate fully in the investigation.

[416]*416The Supreme Court properly found a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff failed to cooperate with the investigation and denied that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The Supreme Court also correctly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order vacating the plaintiff’s demand for discovery and inspection as over-broad, since the demand called for, inter alia, information regarding the denial of claims by other insureds within the City of New York (see, Perez v Board of Educ., 271 AD2d 251).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gray v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.
2018 NY Slip Op 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Jones v. Le-France Leasing Ltd. Partnership
81 A.D.3d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bligen v. Markland Estates, Inc.
6 A.D.3d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rivera v. City of New York
3 A.D.3d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 415, 733 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabrera-v-allstate-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-2001.