Kurtis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

50 A.D.2d 599, 375 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 17, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 599 (Kurtis v. Liberty Mutual 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
Kurtis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 50 A.D.2d 599, 375 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— In an action predicated upon a failure to honor a lien, defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated March 4, 1975, which modified a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, entered January 28, 1974, by reducing the amount awarded to plaintiff upon the grant of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 to $2,444.76, plus interest. Order of the Appellate Term afiirmed, without costs. We agree with the parties that if plaintiff’s right to recover the additional moneys not specified in the notice of lien was predicated solely upon the provisions of section 104-b of the Social Services Law, a question of fact precluding summary judgment would exist: to wit, what portion of the additional moneys was furnished after the notice of lien [600]*600was served and filed. However, this section is not the exclusive remedy afforded plaintiff. In the present case, the public assistance recipient executed a broad assignment of her rights against defendant’s insured to plaintiff. Defendant was well aware of the terms of the assignment but nevertheless chose to disregard it. Under the terms of the assignment plaintiff may recover all moneys expended after the date of the accident. As the parties appear to have acquiesced in the utilization of the provisions of CPLR 3213, we have not reviewed the propriety of such utilization. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bellamy
92 Misc. 2d 211 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 599, 375 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtis-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1975.