Manning v. Peerless Insurance

265 A.D.2d 900, 696 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10018
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in approving settlement of the third-party action. Although plaintiff failed to obtain the consent of defendant Peerless Insurance Company

[901] (Peerless) prior to settling the third-party action, he timely made a motion for a compromise order pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Plaintiff established that the third-party action was settled for the limit of the liability policy (see, Borrowman v Insurance Co., 198 AD2d 891) and that there was little likelihood of collecting anything in excess of the insurance proceeds from the 24-year-old driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. We conclude that Peerless was not prejudiced by the delay in seeking judicial approval (see, Borrowman v Insurance Co., supra) and that plaintiffs papers satisfactorily complied with the statutory requirements (see, Merrill v Moultrie, 166 AD2d 392, lv denied 77 NY2d 804). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Settlement.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Manning v. Peerless Insurance, 265 A.D.2d 900, 696 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

265 A.D.2d 900 (Manning v. Peerless Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MUELLER, KATHLEEN P. v. ELLIOTT, MARCUS J.
139 A.D.3d 1341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)