Kneler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kneler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7040

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 534 (Kneler v. Nationwide 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

Kneler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to declare the rights of the parties under a contract of insurance with respect to whether the defendant Carlos Kneler is an insured under a policy issued to the defendant Nelida Konazewski, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated June 17, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant Carlos Kneler is insured by the subject insurance policy (see, e.g., Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Ryan, 175 AD2d 375).

[535]*535The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to declare the rights of the parties under a contract of insurance with respect to whether the defendant Carlos Kneler is an insured under a policy issued to the defendant Nelida Konazewski, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated June 17, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant Carlos Kneler is insured by the subject insurance policy (see, e.g., Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Ryan, 175 AD2d 375).

[535]*535The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kneler-v-nationwide-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack