K & T Development Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

K & T Development Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Insurance

54 A.D.2d 753, 387 N.Y.S.2d 709

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 753 (K & T Development Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire 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

K & T Development Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Insurance, 54 A.D.2d 753, 387 N.Y.S.2d 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 10, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on March 9, 1976. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The affidavits submitted by plaintiff were insufficient to raise a triable issue as to defendant’s waiver of the limitation provision set forth in the policy. Since there was no indication that plaintiff was misled by defendant’s conduct, defendant was not estopped from raising the 12-month limitation provision (see Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 AD2d 634). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 10, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on March 9, 1976. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The affidavits submitted by plaintiff were insufficient to raise a triable issue as to defendant’s waiver of the limitation provision set forth in the policy. Since there was no indication that plaintiff was misled by defendant’s conduct, defendant was not estopped from raising the 12-month limitation provision (see Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 AD2d 634). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 753, 387 N.Y.S.2d 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-t-development-co-v-quincey-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack