Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith

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

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

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

207 A.D.2d 990 (Investors Special Risk Insurance v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Von Arx, A. G. v. Breitenstein
52 A.D.2d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Alicanto, S. A. v. Woolverton
129 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Interline Furniture, Inc. v. Hodor Industries Corp.
140 A.D.2d 307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Home Indemnity Co. v. Castel Construction Inc.
128 Misc. 2d 1026 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)