Joseph v. Insureco, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Insureco, Inc.

25 A.D.3d 764, 809 N.Y.S.2d 518

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 764 (Joseph v. Insureco, Inc.) 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

Joseph v. Insureco, Inc., 25 A.D.3d 764, 809 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a hybrid action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, and a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, to compel the New York State Superintendent of Insurance to require certain insurance companies to settle the plaintiffs insurance claim arising from water damage [765]*765to his property, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 16, 2004, which granted that branch of the cross motion of Insureco, Inc., St. Paul Insurance Company, sued herein as St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance, and United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, sued herein as United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., which was to dismiss the claims insofar as asserted against them as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), granted that branch of the cross motion of the New York State Insurance Department and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance which was to dismiss the claims insofar as asserted against them as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), and dismissed the proceeding insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Pursuant to the limitations provisions contained in the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff and the endorsement, his claim against Insureco, Inc., St. Paul Insurance Company, sued herein as St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance, and United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, sued herein as United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., was properly dismissed as time-barred. Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a shorter period than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 201; Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Saltaire v Zagata, 280 AD2d 547 [2001]). The claims asserted against the New York State Insurance Department and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance were likewise time-barred (see CPLR 217).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In a hybrid action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, and a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, to compel the New York State Superintendent of Insurance to require certain insurance companies to settle the plaintiffs insurance claim arising from water damage [765]*765to his property, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 16, 2004, which granted that branch of the cross motion of Insureco, Inc., St. Paul Insurance Company, sued herein as St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance, and United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, sued herein as United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., which was to dismiss the claims insofar as asserted against them as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), granted that branch of the cross motion of the New York State Insurance Department and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance which was to dismiss the claims insofar as asserted against them as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), and dismissed the proceeding insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Pursuant to the limitations provisions contained in the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff and the endorsement, his claim against Insureco, Inc., St. Paul Insurance Company, sued herein as St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance, and United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, sued herein as United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., was properly dismissed as time-barred. Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a shorter period than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 201; Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Saltaire v Zagata, 280 AD2d 547 [2001]). The claims asserted against the New York State Insurance Department and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance were likewise time-barred (see CPLR 217).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 764, 809 N.Y.S.2d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-insureco-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack