Daley v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daley v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

301 A.D.2d 364, 752 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 364 (Daley v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Daley v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., 301 A.D.2d 364, 752 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 12, 2002, which, in an action against an insurer to recover on a default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff against defendant’s insured in an underlying action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by a car driven by defendant’s insured, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 11, 2002, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff gave defendant notice of the action as soon as reasonably possible (Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [4]). Such notice cannot be imputed to defendant on the basis of its knowledge of and eventual acceptance of plaintiff’s no-fault claim (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. [Eun Kyu Park], 277 AD2d 175). We have considered and rejected plaintiff’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 12, 2002, which, in an action against an insurer to recover on a default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff against defendant’s insured in an underlying action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by a car driven by defendant’s insured, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 11, 2002, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff gave defendant notice of the action as soon as reasonably possible (Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [4]). Such notice cannot be imputed to defendant on the basis of its knowledge of and eventual acceptance of plaintiff’s no-fault claim (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. [Eun Kyu Park], 277 AD2d 175). We have considered and rejected plaintiff’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 364, 752 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daley-v-travelers-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack