McLaughlin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLaughlin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

255 A.D.2d 298, 679 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 298 (McLaughlin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) 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

McLaughlin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 255 A.D.2d 298, 679 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 10, 1997, which denied its motion to direct the plaintiff to disclose certain financial records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to submit any admissible evidence suggesting that the plaintiffs chimney collapsed under suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiff had a possible motive in arranging for the collapse of the structure (cf., Maurice v Allstate Ins. Co., 173 AD2d 793). Accordingly, the defendant failed to show that the plaintiffs financial situation was material and relevant. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 10, 1997, which denied its motion to direct the plaintiff to disclose certain financial records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to submit any admissible evidence suggesting that the plaintiffs chimney collapsed under suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiff had a possible motive in arranging for the collapse of the structure (cf., Maurice v Allstate Ins. Co., 173 AD2d 793). Accordingly, the defendant failed to show that the plaintiffs financial situation was material and relevant. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 298, 679 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack