Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro

289 A.D.2d 46, 734 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 46 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro) 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

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro, 289 A.D.2d 46, 734 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered October 24, 2000, which, in this action seeking the recovery of monies allegedly due and owing under a workers’ compensation policy issued to defendants, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $214,653.62, and which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 5, 2000, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order entered October 5, 2000 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The grant of summary judgment in plaintiffs favor was proper. The business records submitted by plaintiff established, prima facie, defendants’ nonpayment of the insurance premiums sought. Defendants, in response to plaintiffs prima facie showing, failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether they had satisfied their obligation to pay the subject premiums (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Allou Distribs., 220 AD2d 217). Contrary to defendants’ contention, this action was timely commenced.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendants’ argument that their motion to change venue was [47]*47improperly denied. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered October 24, 2000, which, in this action seeking the recovery of monies allegedly due and owing under a workers’ compensation policy issued to defendants, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $214,653.62, and which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 5, 2000, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order entered October 5, 2000 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The grant of summary judgment in plaintiffs favor was proper. The business records submitted by plaintiff established, prima facie, defendants’ nonpayment of the insurance premiums sought. Defendants, in response to plaintiffs prima facie showing, failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether they had satisfied their obligation to pay the subject premiums (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Allou Distribs., 220 AD2d 217). Contrary to defendants’ contention, this action was timely commenced.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendants’ argument that their motion to change venue was [47]*47improperly denied. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 46, 734 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-the-state-insurance-fund-v-dipietro-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack