Galligan v. Royal Globe Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galligan v. Royal Globe Insurance

119 A.D.2d 987, 500 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55917

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

DecidedApril 4, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 987 (Galligan v. Royal Globe 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

Galligan v. Royal Globe Insurance, 119 A.D.2d 987, 500 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court erred in failing to grant summary judgment to defendant based on proof that the limitation period in the insurance policy had expired before plaintiff commenced this action. Plaintiff commenced this action. Plaintiff failed to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a factual issue that either estoppel or waiver prevented defendant from relying on the limitation provision (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068; cf. Blitman Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 66 NY2d 820, 822). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court erred in failing to grant summary judgment to defendant based on proof that the limitation period in the insurance policy had expired before plaintiff commenced this action. Plaintiff commenced this action. Plaintiff failed to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a factual issue that either estoppel or waiver prevented defendant from relying on the limitation provision (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068; cf. Blitman Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 66 NY2d 820, 822). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 987, 500 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galligan-v-royal-globe-insurance-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack