Heidi Associates v. Lawyers Title Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Heidi Associates v. Lawyers Title Insurance

495 N.E.2d 350, 67 N.Y.2d 1041, 504 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18709

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 495 N.E.2d 350 (Heidi Associates v. Lawyers Title Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heidi Associates v. Lawyers Title Insurance, 495 N.E.2d 350, 67 N.Y.2d 1041, 504 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18709 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action of the complaint granted and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on said cause of action denied. Certified question answered in the negative. We [1044]*1044agree with so much of the dissenting memorandum of Justice Ernst Rosenberger at the Appellate Division (112 AD2d 844, 847-850) as concluded that the in rem proceeding upon which plaintiffs claim is based is not a separate encumbrance from the tax liens to which the defendant title insurer had duly excepted. Given those exceptions in the commitment and title policy, Insurance Law § 1113 (a) (18), which defines title insurance generally, does not require a contrary conclusion.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action of the complaint granted and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on said cause of action denied. Certified question answered in the negative. We [1044]*1044agree with so much of the dissenting memorandum of Justice Ernst Rosenberger at the Appellate Division (112 AD2d 844, 847-850) as concluded that the in rem proceeding upon which plaintiffs claim is based is not a separate encumbrance from the tax liens to which the defendant title insurer had duly excepted. Given those exceptions in the commitment and title policy, Insurance Law § 1113 (a) (18), which defines title insurance generally, does not require a contrary conclusion.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 N.E.2d 350, 67 N.Y.2d 1041, 504 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heidi-associates-v-lawyers-title-insurance-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack