Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Valilis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Valilis

16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10566

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

DecidedApril 3, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.2d 616 (Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Valilis) 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

Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Valilis, 16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 1, 1961, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Under the circumstances here, the delivery by the defendant (the insured) of a check for the balance of the premium and the acceptance of the same by the broker would not have the effect of nullifying or waiving a cancellation of the policy, if duly effected. (See Insurance Law, § 121; Mord v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 245 N. Y. 279; Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 28 Misc 2d 1080.) Therefore, if the plaintiff insurance company had complied with the requirements to effect a cancellation of the policy, it would be entitled to judgment. The matter of whether or not there was such compliance, including whether or not there was a due mailing of the notice of cancellation to the insured was not, however, briefed or argued; and the plaintiff on this appeal merely asks for affirmance of the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, we have not considered the question of whether or not plaintiff should have had judgment in its favor on this motion. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered August 1, 1961, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Under the circumstances here, the delivery by the defendant (the insured) of a check for the balance of the premium and the acceptance of the same by the broker would not have the effect of nullifying or waiving a cancellation of the policy, if duly effected. (See Insurance Law, § 121; Mord v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 245 N. Y. 279; Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 28 Misc 2d 1080.) Therefore, if the plaintiff insurance company had complied with the requirements to effect a cancellation of the policy, it would be entitled to judgment. The matter of whether or not there was such compliance, including whether or not there was a due mailing of the notice of cancellation to the insured was not, however, briefed or argued; and the plaintiff on this appeal merely asks for affirmance of the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, we have not considered the question of whether or not plaintiff should have had judgment in its favor on this motion. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-mutual-insurance-v-valilis-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack