Crossett v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crossett v. Sweeney

144 A.D.2d 955, 534 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14435

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 955 (Crossett v. Sweeney) 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

Crossett v. Sweeney, 144 A.D.2d 955, 534 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in denying the motion of codefendants Paul Sweeney and Paul R. Sweeney Agency, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint against them. Plaintiffs elected their remedy by seeking and securing the penalty order pursuant to CPLR 3126 against codefendant Dixon, which established that there was a policy of insurance in effect at the time plaintiffs’ property was destroyed by fire, and by thereafter obtaining a default judgment against him. Plaintiffs cannot now proceed against appellants on the theory that they breached a duty to obtain such policy (see, Simon v Boyer, 51 AD2d 879, affd 41 NY2d 822; see generally, 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac ch 10). The order appealed from is modified to grant summary judgment to appellants and to strike the last decretal paragraph. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Donovan, J. — summary judgment.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in denying the motion of codefendants Paul Sweeney and Paul R. Sweeney Agency, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint against them. Plaintiffs elected their remedy by seeking and securing the penalty order pursuant to CPLR 3126 against codefendant Dixon, which established that there was a policy of insurance in effect at the time plaintiffs’ property was destroyed by fire, and by thereafter obtaining a default judgment against him. Plaintiffs cannot now proceed against appellants on the theory that they breached a duty to obtain such policy (see, Simon v Boyer, 51 AD2d 879, affd 41 NY2d 822; see generally, 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac ch 10). The order appealed from is modified to grant summary judgment to appellants and to strike the last decretal paragraph. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Donovan, J. — summary judgment.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 955, 534 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossett-v-sweeney-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack