D&L Departmemt Stores v. J.A.M. Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D&L Departmemt Stores v. J.A.M. Associates, Inc.

180 A.D.2d 422

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 422 (D&L Departmemt Stores v. J.A.M. Associates, Inc.) 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

D&L Departmemt Stores v. J.A.M. Associates, Inc., 180 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered May 29, 1991, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion and defendant J.A.M. Associates, Inc.’s cross-motion for reargument and renewal, and, upon reargument and renewal, vacated a prior decision of the same court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant GA Insurance Company of New York, and adhered to such prior decision insofar as it denied defendant J.A.M. summary judgment as against defendant GA, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Order of the same court, entered August 6, 1991, which granted defendant GA’s motion to renew and reargue, and upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior order entered May 29, 1991, unanimously affirmed.

A distinction between agents and brokers has long been recognized (see, Allen v German Am. Ins. Co., 123 NY 6; 3 Couch, Insurance § 25.93 [2d ed]). The true role and identity of each entity involved in obtaining the insurance at issue herein has yet to be demonstrated. At this juncture, issues of fact exist as to whether PJM Brokerage Corp. acted as a broker for plaintiff or as agent for defendant GA Insurance, as well as whether the notices of cancellation were properly mailed to plaintiff and its authorized agent or broker. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered May 29, 1991, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion and defendant J.A.M. Associates, Inc.’s cross-motion for reargument and renewal, and, upon reargument and renewal, vacated a prior decision of the same court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant GA Insurance Company of New York, and adhered to such prior decision insofar as it denied defendant J.A.M. summary judgment as against defendant GA, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Order of the same court, entered August 6, 1991, which granted defendant GA’s motion to renew and reargue, and upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior order entered May 29, 1991, unanimously affirmed.

A distinction between agents and brokers has long been recognized (see, Allen v German Am. Ins. Co., 123 NY 6; 3 Couch, Insurance § 25.93 [2d ed]). The true role and identity of each entity involved in obtaining the insurance at issue herein has yet to be demonstrated. At this juncture, issues of fact exist as to whether PJM Brokerage Corp. acted as a broker for plaintiff or as agent for defendant GA Insurance, as well as whether the notices of cancellation were properly mailed to plaintiff and its authorized agent or broker. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dl-departmemt-stores-v-jam-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack