Liquidation of Union Indemnity Ins. v. Superintendent of Ins.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liquidation of Union Indemnity Ins. v. Superintendent of Ins.

220 A.D.2d 341, 633 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10359

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 341 (Liquidation of Union Indemnity Ins. v. Superintendent of Ins.) 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

Liquidation of Union Indemnity Ins. v. Superintendent of Ins., 220 A.D.2d 341, 633 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 6, 1995, confirming the report of the Referee disallowing the claim against the Liquidator, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal by the Liquidator unanimously dismissed as academic.

The Referee properly construed the performance bond in finding that claimant was required to provide the surety with notice of the subcontractor’s default, and, contrary to claimant’s contention, the Second Department decisions in Babylon Assocs. v County of Suffolk (101 AD2d 207, 217-218) and Menorah Nursing Home v Zukov (153 AD2d 13, 21-22) do not suggest to the contrary.

The Referee’s determination that notice had not in fact been provided in this case was supported by the record (see, Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727). The mailing presumption did not apply in the absence of testimony by a person with knowledge of claimant’s regular office practice. The testimony of claimant’s vice president that his secretary usually did what she was told was insufficient for this purpose.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue raised on the Liquidator’s cross-appeal with respect to the claimant’s entitlement to interest. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 6, 1995, confirming the report of the Referee disallowing the claim against the Liquidator, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal by the Liquidator unanimously dismissed as academic.

The Referee properly construed the performance bond in finding that claimant was required to provide the surety with notice of the subcontractor’s default, and, contrary to claimant’s contention, the Second Department decisions in Babylon Assocs. v County of Suffolk (101 AD2d 207, 217-218) and Menorah Nursing Home v Zukov (153 AD2d 13, 21-22) do not suggest to the contrary.

The Referee’s determination that notice had not in fact been provided in this case was supported by the record (see, Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727). The mailing presumption did not apply in the absence of testimony by a person with knowledge of claimant’s regular office practice. The testimony of claimant’s vice president that his secretary usually did what she was told was insufficient for this purpose.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue raised on the Liquidator’s cross-appeal with respect to the claimant’s entitlement to interest. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 341, 633 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liquidation-of-union-indemnity-ins-v-superintendent-of-ins-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack