Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.

254 A.D.2d 746, 678 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10434

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 746 (Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.) 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

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co., 254 A.D.2d 746, 678 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant established its initial entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent under the underinsured motorist’s coverage of the insurance policy (see, Sulner v G.A. Ins. Co., 224 AD2d 205, 205-206, lv denied 88 NY2d 805; see also, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 688, 690-691). Plaintiff, however, raised an issue of fact whether defendant waived the condition precedent (cf., Sulner v G.A. Ins. Co., supra, at 206). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, 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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant established its initial entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent under the underinsured motorist’s coverage of the insurance policy (see, Sulner v G.A. Ins. Co., 224 AD2d 205, 205-206, lv denied 88 NY2d 805; see also, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 688, 690-691). Plaintiff, however, raised an issue of fact whether defendant waived the condition precedent (cf., Sulner v G.A. Ins. Co., supra, at 206). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 746, 678 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsman-v-royal-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack