Hermance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hermance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

265 A.D.2d 328, 696 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9648

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 328 (Hermance v. Fireman's Fund 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

Hermance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, 265 A.D.2d 328, 696 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve the settlement of an action nunc pro tunc, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated September 28, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Proceedings pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) are directed to the discretion of the court (see, Matter of Gilson v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 246 AD2d 897; Severino v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 238 AD2d 837). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to ap[329]*329prove the petitioner’s settlement with a third party nunc pro tunc (see, Matter of Gilson v National Union Fire Ins. Co., supra; Matter of Wilbur v Utica Mut. Co., 228 AD2d 928). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve the settlement of an action nunc pro tunc, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated September 28, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Proceedings pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) are directed to the discretion of the court (see, Matter of Gilson v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 246 AD2d 897; Severino v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 238 AD2d 837). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to ap[329]*329prove the petitioner’s settlement with a third party nunc pro tunc (see, Matter of Gilson v National Union Fire Ins. Co., supra; Matter of Wilbur v Utica Mut. Co., 228 AD2d 928). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 328, 696 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermance-v-firemans-fund-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack