Clemente v. Interboro Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clemente v. Interboro Insurance

115 A.D.3d 699, 981 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 699 (Clemente v. Interboro 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

Clemente v. Interboro Insurance, 115 A.D.3d 699, 981 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered May 23, 2013, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure of documents requested in item numbers 1 and 2 of its supplemental demand for discovery and inspection dated September 10, 2012.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure of documents requested in item numbers 1 and 2 of its supplemental demand for discovery and inspection dated September 10, 2012, is granted.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiffs to provide copies of those portions of their bank statements which listed the locations and dates of their debit card and ATM transactions for the period from January 1, 2010, through June 6, 2011. This information was material and necessary, inter alia, with respect to the issue of whether the insured property was the plaintiffs’ primary residence (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 407 [1968]; Dore v Allstate Indent. Co., 264 AD2d 804, 805 [1999]; Schneider v Barash, 170 AD2d 319 [1991]).

Mastro, J.P, Hall, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered May 23, 2013, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure of documents requested in item numbers 1 and 2 of its supplemental demand for discovery and inspection dated September 10, 2012.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure of documents requested in item numbers 1 and 2 of its supplemental demand for discovery and inspection dated September 10, 2012, is granted.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiffs to provide copies of those portions of their bank statements which listed the locations and dates of their debit card and ATM transactions for the period from January 1, 2010, through June 6, 2011. This information was material and necessary, inter alia, with respect to the issue of whether the insured property was the plaintiffs’ primary residence (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 407 [1968]; Dore v Allstate Indent. Co., 264 AD2d 804, 805 [1999]; Schneider v Barash, 170 AD2d 319 [1991]).

Mastro, J.P, Hall, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 699, 981 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemente-v-interboro-insurance-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack