Cassidy v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cassidy v. Allstate Insurance

63 A.D.3d 869, 880 N.Y.S.2d 527

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 869 (Cassidy v. Allstate 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

Cassidy v. Allstate Insurance, 63 A.D.3d 869, 880 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of insurance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 3, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the ground that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the insured made material misrepresentations concerning the loss for which coverage is sought. To the extent that the parties present conflicting evidence, it is clear that resolution of the issue will require credibility determinations, which are not proper on a motion for summary judgment, with limited exceptions not applicable here (see 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v AutoZone, Inc., 27 AD3d 447 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of insurance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 3, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the ground that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the insured made material misrepresentations concerning the loss for which coverage is sought. To the extent that the parties present conflicting evidence, it is clear that resolution of the issue will require credibility determinations, which are not proper on a motion for summary judgment, with limited exceptions not applicable here (see 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v AutoZone, Inc., 27 AD3d 447 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 869, 880 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack