Dana v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dana v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance

79 A.D.3d 790, 913 N.Y.S.2d 560

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 790 (Dana v. Allstate New Jersey 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

Dana v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance, 79 A.D.3d 790, 913 N.Y.S.2d 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to the supplementary underinsured motorist provision of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), entered April 16, 2008, which, upon a special jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Morris Dana sustained damages in the principal sums of $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering, and that the plaintiff Susan Dana sustained damages in the principal sum of $5,000 for loss of services, is in favor of the plaintiff Morris Dana and against it in the principal sum of $45,000 and in favor of the plaintiff Susan Dana and against it in the principal sum of $5,000, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the judgment was vacated by an order of the same court dated May 13, 2009 (see Dana v Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, 79 AD3d 791 [2010] [decided herewith]).

The appeal and the cross appeal from the judgment entered April 16, 2008, must be dismissed as academic since the judgment was vacated by an order of the same court dated May 13, 2009, which, among other things, granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment (see generally Kerrigan v Kerrigan, 71 AD3d 737 [2010]; Kessler v Kessler, 47 AD3d 892 [2008]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Austin, 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 pursuant to the supplementary underinsured motorist provision of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), entered April 16, 2008, which, upon a special jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Morris Dana sustained damages in the principal sums of $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering, and that the plaintiff Susan Dana sustained damages in the principal sum of $5,000 for loss of services, is in favor of the plaintiff Morris Dana and against it in the principal sum of $45,000 and in favor of the plaintiff Susan Dana and against it in the principal sum of $5,000, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the judgment was vacated by an order of the same court dated May 13, 2009 (see Dana v Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, 79 AD3d 791 [2010] [decided herewith]).

The appeal and the cross appeal from the judgment entered April 16, 2008, must be dismissed as academic since the judgment was vacated by an order of the same court dated May 13, 2009, which, among other things, granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment (see generally Kerrigan v Kerrigan, 71 AD3d 737 [2010]; Kessler v Kessler, 47 AD3d 892 [2008]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 790, 913 N.Y.S.2d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dana-v-allstate-new-jersey-insurance-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack