Middletown Plaza Associates v. United Surety & Financial Guarantee Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Middletown Plaza Associates v. United Surety & Financial Guarantee Co.

51 A.D.2d 581, 378 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10872

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1976·Published

Opinion

In an action inter alia for a declaratory judgment, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated March 17, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion inter alia to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 8). Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination on the issue of jurisdiction. No fact issues were presented on this appeal. The resolution of the question of whether the court has jurisdiction stems from whether defendant’s agent had actual or apparent authority to issue bonds outside Pennsylvania (Insurance Law, § 59-a, subds 1, 2). Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to present evidence, if they can, to establish that the agent who issued the bonds to the subcontractor, Bernard H. Steinke, Inc., had actual or apparent authority to do so. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur. [81 Misc 2d 66.]

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

In an action inter alia for a declaratory judgment, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated March 17, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion inter alia to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 8). Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination on the issue of jurisdiction. No fact issues were presented on this appeal. The resolution of the question of whether the court has jurisdiction stems from whether defendant’s agent had actual or apparent authority to issue bonds outside Pennsylvania (Insurance Law, § 59-a, subds 1, 2). Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to present evidence, if they can, to establish that the agent who issued the bonds to the subcontractor, Bernard H. Steinke, Inc., had actual or apparent authority to do so. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur. [81 Misc 2d 66.]

Middletown Plaza Associates v. United Surety & Financial Guarantee Co., 51 A.D.2d 581, 378 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 581 (Middletown Plaza Associates v. United Surety & Financial Guarantee Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related