Marx v. American Home Assurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marx v. American Home Assurance

203 A.D.2d 197, 611 N.Y.S.2d 160

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

DecidedApril 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 197 (Marx v. American Home Assurance) 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

Marx v. American Home Assurance, 203 A.D.2d 197, 611 N.Y.S.2d 160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered June 29, 1993 which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was contractually obligated to inform American when he obtained information which might possibly lead to liability. He received such information and forwarded it to American in 1980. A case file was opened at that time. The provisions of the governing 1980-1981 policy are clear and unambiguous, and according to its terms, the claim was interposed when plaintiff gave notice, not when an action subsequently was commenced. Plaintiffs bare allegations of fraud and bad faith, which are devoid of any factual support, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Indeed, plaintiff, a sophisticated attorney-accountant, consented to the settlement of the underlying action, in which defendant insurer exhausted the applicable policy limits. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered June 29, 1993 which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was contractually obligated to inform American when he obtained information which might possibly lead to liability. He received such information and forwarded it to American in 1980. A case file was opened at that time. The provisions of the governing 1980-1981 policy are clear and unambiguous, and according to its terms, the claim was interposed when plaintiff gave notice, not when an action subsequently was commenced. Plaintiffs bare allegations of fraud and bad faith, which are devoid of any factual support, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Indeed, plaintiff, a sophisticated attorney-accountant, consented to the settlement of the underlying action, in which defendant insurer exhausted the applicable policy limits. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 197, 611 N.Y.S.2d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marx-v-american-home-assurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack