Lydon v. Hasse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lydon v. Hasse

265 A.D.2d 531, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10816

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 531 (Lydon v. Hasse) 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

Lydon v. Hasse, 265 A.D.2d 531, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered September 29 1997, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to dismiss the seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses, and to set aside a release, and denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiffs cross motion which were to dismiss the affirmative defenses based on release and to set aside the release. Misrepresentations were made by the defendant in an affidavit unrelated to her motion and unrefuted misrepresentations were made by the defendant’s excess insurer prior to the time that the plaintiff entered into the release (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 616; see also, Williamson Cent. School Dist. v E & L Piping, 261 AD2d 937; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583; Desiderato v N & A Taxi, 190 AD2d 250, 253).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered September 29 1997, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to dismiss the seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses, and to set aside a release, and denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiffs cross motion which were to dismiss the affirmative defenses based on release and to set aside the release. Misrepresentations were made by the defendant in an affidavit unrelated to her motion and unrefuted misrepresentations were made by the defendant’s excess insurer prior to the time that the plaintiff entered into the release (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 616; see also, Williamson Cent. School Dist. v E & L Piping, 261 AD2d 937; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583; Desiderato v N & A Taxi, 190 AD2d 250, 253).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 531, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lydon-v-hasse-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack