Ienaro v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ienaro v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

86 A.D.2d 859, 447 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15490

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 859 (Ienaro v. Travelers Indemnity Co.) 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

Ienaro v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 86 A.D.2d 859, 447 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover insurance proceeds due under a homeowner’s multiperil insurance policy, for losses due to theft, defendants [860]*860appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), entered April 18, 1980, as denied their motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed. This action was commenced by plaintiffs to recover for burglary losses, under a multiperil insurance policy issued by defendant Travelers Indemnity Company. Pursuant to that policy, any “claim” for losses must be “commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss.” Plaintiffs commenced this action more than 12 months after the burglary. Consequently, plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed as untimely (see Bargaintown, D.C. v Bellefonte Ins. Co., 54 NY2d 700). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and’Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover insurance proceeds due under a homeowner’s multiperil insurance policy, for losses due to theft, defendants [860]*860appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), entered April 18, 1980, as denied their motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed. This action was commenced by plaintiffs to recover for burglary losses, under a multiperil insurance policy issued by defendant Travelers Indemnity Company. Pursuant to that policy, any “claim” for losses must be “commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss.” Plaintiffs commenced this action more than 12 months after the burglary. Consequently, plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed as untimely (see Bargaintown, D.C. v Bellefonte Ins. Co., 54 NY2d 700). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and’Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 859, 447 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ienaro-v-travelers-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack