Korn v. First UNUM Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Korn v. First UNUM Life Insurance

277 A.D.2d 356, 717 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12140

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 356 (Korn v. First UNUM Life 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

Korn v. First UNUM Life Insurance, 277 A.D.2d 356, 717 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered September 24, 1999, as denied his cross mo[357]*357tion for summary judgment on the complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court, entered September 24, 1999, which denied his motion to preclude the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company from using certain affidavits and exhibits in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company cross-appeals from so much of the order and judgment as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant-respondent.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. There are issues of fact as to whether the plaintiffs occupation was that of an orthopedic surgeon and whether he was “totally disabled” within the meaning of the disability income insurance policies (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; McGrail v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 292 NY 419, 425; Godesky v First Unum Life Ins. Co., 239 AD2d 547).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered September 24, 1999, as denied his cross mo[357]*357tion for summary judgment on the complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court, entered September 24, 1999, which denied his motion to preclude the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company from using certain affidavits and exhibits in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company cross-appeals from so much of the order and judgment as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant-respondent.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. There are issues of fact as to whether the plaintiffs occupation was that of an orthopedic surgeon and whether he was “totally disabled” within the meaning of the disability income insurance policies (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; McGrail v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 292 NY 419, 425; Godesky v First Unum Life Ins. Co., 239 AD2d 547).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 356, 717 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korn-v-first-unum-life-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack