Fahrenholz v. Security Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fahrenholz v. Security Mutual Insurance

291 A.D.2d 876, 738 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 876 (Fahrenholz v. Security Mutual 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

Fahrenholz v. Security Mutual Insurance, 291 A.D.2d 876, 738 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Fahey, J.), entered May 11, 2001, that granted defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company’s cross motion to dismiss the second cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm, for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Fahey, J.), the order granting that part of the cross motion of defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company (Security Mutual) seeking dismissal of the second cause of action. In that cause of action, plaintiff sought a decíaration that Security Mutual is required to submit to an appraisal pursuant to Insurance Law § 3404 (g). We add only that Insurance Law § 3404, in its present form, does not eliminate the prohibition against seeking specific performance of the appraisal provision in the standard fire insurance policy set forth in CPLR 7601. Further legislative action is required to eliminate that prohibition. Present — Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Fahey, J.), entered May 11, 2001, that granted defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company’s cross motion to dismiss the second cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm, for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Fahey, J.), the order granting that part of the cross motion of defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company (Security Mutual) seeking dismissal of the second cause of action. In that cause of action, plaintiff sought a decíaration that Security Mutual is required to submit to an appraisal pursuant to Insurance Law § 3404 (g). We add only that Insurance Law § 3404, in its present form, does not eliminate the prohibition against seeking specific performance of the appraisal provision in the standard fire insurance policy set forth in CPLR 7601. Further legislative action is required to eliminate that prohibition. Present — Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 876, 738 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fahrenholz-v-security-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack