Martin v. New York Property Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. New York Property Insurance

114 A.D.2d 401, 494 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53082

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 401 (Martin v. New York Property 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

Martin v. New York Property Insurance, 114 A.D.2d 401, 494 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover under an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 13, 1984, as granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action and to extend the time in which to file an answer, and denied so much of plaintiff’s cross motion which was for a special preference, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court (Santucci, J.), dated February 8, 1985, as denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss respondent’s affirmative defenses.

Orders affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

However unfair the respondent’s treatment of its insured may be, the causes of action dismissed by Special Term have no legal basis in this State. The affirmative defense of fraud should be tried. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover under an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 13, 1984, as granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action and to extend the time in which to file an answer, and denied so much of plaintiff’s cross motion which was for a special preference, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court (Santucci, J.), dated February 8, 1985, as denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss respondent’s affirmative defenses.

Orders affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

However unfair the respondent’s treatment of its insured may be, the causes of action dismissed by Special Term have no legal basis in this State. The affirmative defense of fraud should be tried. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 401, 494 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-new-york-property-insurance-nyappdiv-1985.