Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith

207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 689

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 990 (Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith) 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

Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. The proof fails to establish, as a matter of law, whether defendants are liable to pay past-due premiums on the policies issued by plaintiff (cf., Home Indem. Co. v Castel Constr., 128 Misc 2d 1026). Further, defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that [991]*991plaintiff lacks capacity to maintain this action because of Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) (see, Interline Furniture v Hodor Indus. Corp., 140 AD2d 307; Alicanto, S. A. v Woolverton, 129 AD2d 601; Von Arx, A. G. v Breitenstein, 52 AD2d 1049, affd 41 NY2d 958). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. The proof fails to establish, as a matter of law, whether defendants are liable to pay past-due premiums on the policies issued by plaintiff (cf., Home Indem. Co. v Castel Constr., 128 Misc 2d 1026). Further, defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that [991]*991plaintiff lacks capacity to maintain this action because of Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) (see, Interline Furniture v Hodor Indus. Corp., 140 AD2d 307; Alicanto, S. A. v Woolverton, 129 AD2d 601; Von Arx, A. G. v Breitenstein, 52 AD2d 1049, affd 41 NY2d 958). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/investors-special-risk-insurance-v-smith-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack