Classon Realty Corp. v. Tower Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Classon Realty Corp. v. Tower Insurance

68 A.D.3d 802, 889 N.Y.2d 480

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 802 (Classon Realty Corp. v. Tower 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

Classon Realty Corp. v. Tower Insurance, 68 A.D.3d 802, 889 N.Y.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there are no triable issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there are no triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff insured made material misrepresentations during the defendant’s investigation of the plaintiffs claim (see Christophersen v Allstate Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 515 [2006]; Fine v Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 725 F2d 179, 183 [1984], cert denied 469 US 874 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there are no triable issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there are no triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff insured made material misrepresentations during the defendant’s investigation of the plaintiffs claim (see Christophersen v Allstate Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 515 [2006]; Fine v Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 725 F2d 179, 183 [1984], cert denied 469 US 874 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 802, 889 N.Y.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/classon-realty-corp-v-tower-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack