Mack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

17 A.D.3d 1006, 793 N.Y.S.2d 794, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1006 (Mack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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

Mack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 17 A.D.3d 1006, 793 N.Y.S.2d 794, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered March 8, 2004 in an action for money damages and declaratory relief. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

[1007]*1007It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that revisions in defendant’s insurance policy, made in accordance with directives of the Insurance Department of the State of New York, have resolved the ambiguities previously found by this Court in Canastraro v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (256 AD2d 1161 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 806 [1999]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered March 8, 2004 in an action for money damages and declaratory relief. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

[1007]*1007It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that revisions in defendant’s insurance policy, made in accordance with directives of the Insurance Department of the State of New York, have resolved the ambiguities previously found by this Court in Canastraro v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (256 AD2d 1161 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 806 [1999]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1006, 793 N.Y.S.2d 794, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack