In re Ancillary Receivership of Reliance Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ancillary Receivership of Reliance Insurance

41 A.D.3d 148, 837 N.Y.S.2d 640

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

DecidedJune 7, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 148 (In re Ancillary Receivership of Reliance 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

In re Ancillary Receivership of Reliance Insurance, 41 A.D.3d 148, 837 N.Y.S.2d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered November 2, 2006, which denied claimant’s motion to confirm and granted the liquidator’s cross motion to disaffirm the report of the special referee, and denied the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The liquidator was not required to pay the claim resulting from the settlement. Its denial of the claim on the ground the settlement violated the stay was rational and within its broad power to implement the legislative policy embodied in the statutory liquidation scheme (see generally Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the liquidator, acting in its governmental capacity, was not subject to estoppel for failure to respond to claimant’s requests to consent to the proposed settlement (see Serio v Ardra Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 362 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003]). In any event, there was no basis for estoppel (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307 [2006]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the other grounds urged for affirmance. We have considered claimant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered November 2, 2006, which denied claimant’s motion to confirm and granted the liquidator’s cross motion to disaffirm the report of the special referee, and denied the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The liquidator was not required to pay the claim resulting from the settlement. Its denial of the claim on the ground the settlement violated the stay was rational and within its broad power to implement the legislative policy embodied in the statutory liquidation scheme (see generally Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the liquidator, acting in its governmental capacity, was not subject to estoppel for failure to respond to claimant’s requests to consent to the proposed settlement (see Serio v Ardra Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 362 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003]). In any event, there was no basis for estoppel (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307 [2006]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the other grounds urged for affirmance. We have considered claimant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 148, 837 N.Y.S.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ancillary-receivership-of-reliance-insurance-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack