Mehilentze v. Sea Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mehilentze v. Sea Insurance

76 A.D.2d 884, 428 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11961

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

DecidedJune 16, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 884 (Mehilentze v. Sea 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

Mehilentze v. Sea Insurance, 76 A.D.2d 884, 428 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a declaratory judgment action, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 26, 1979, which declared that plaintiffs were entitled to excess coverage under certain policy of insurance issued by defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court was justified in finding as a matter of law that the written communications sent to defendant insurance carrier were sufficient to constitute a notice of claim under section 167 (subd 1, par [c]) of the Insurance Law. Defendant’s failure to disclaim or deny coverage for a period in excess of one year after receiving notice was unreasonable, thus obligating it to provide excess coverage under the policy in question (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 8; Allstate Ins. Co. v Gross, 21 NY2d 263). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a declaratory judgment action, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 26, 1979, which declared that plaintiffs were entitled to excess coverage under certain policy of insurance issued by defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court was justified in finding as a matter of law that the written communications sent to defendant insurance carrier were sufficient to constitute a notice of claim under section 167 (subd 1, par [c]) of the Insurance Law. Defendant’s failure to disclaim or deny coverage for a period in excess of one year after receiving notice was unreasonable, thus obligating it to provide excess coverage under the policy in question (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 8; Allstate Ins. Co. v Gross, 21 NY2d 263). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 884, 428 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehilentze-v-sea-insurance-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack