Clarendon National Insurance v. Le

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clarendon National Insurance v. Le

46 A.D.3d 407, 847 N.Y.S.2d 463

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 407 (Clarendon National Insurance v. Le) 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

Clarendon National Insurance v. Le, 46 A.D.3d 407, 847 N.Y.S.2d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 13, 2006, which, upon granting defendant Briano’s motion to vacate a default judgment, granted summary judgment to plaintiff insurer and declared the policy it had issued to defendant Le void, relieving it of any obligation to defend or indemnify Le in the underlying action brought by Briano against Le and others, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The refusal to afford Briano an opportunity to discover whether plaintiffs efforts to locate Le, the driver in the truck allegedly causing the accident, had been directed at the wrong person, was improper (see Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]). Concur — Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 13, 2006, which, upon granting defendant Briano’s motion to vacate a default judgment, granted summary judgment to plaintiff insurer and declared the policy it had issued to defendant Le void, relieving it of any obligation to defend or indemnify Le in the underlying action brought by Briano against Le and others, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The refusal to afford Briano an opportunity to discover whether plaintiffs efforts to locate Le, the driver in the truck allegedly causing the accident, had been directed at the wrong person, was improper (see Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]). Concur — Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 407, 847 N.Y.S.2d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarendon-national-insurance-v-le-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack