Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.

254 A.D.2d 746, 678 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10434
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

254 A.D.2d 746 (Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacQuesten General Contracting, Inc. v. HCE, INC.
296 F. Supp. 2d 437 (S.D. New York, 2003)