Moors v. Travelers Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moors v. Travelers Insurance

179 A.D.2d 1069, 580 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1069 (Moors v. Travelers 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

Moors v. Travelers Insurance, 179 A.D.2d 1069, 580 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; 3212; see also, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Gold-stein v County of Monroe, 77 AD2d 232). Plaintiff’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue concerning whether defendant had assumed a duty to him to instruct him properly and whether the alleged breach of that duty left plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than he otherwise would have been in, thereby contributing to his injury (cf., Jansen v Fidelity & Cas. Co., 165 AD2d 223, lv granted 78 NY2d 853; Kingsland v Factory Mut. Sys., 145 AD2d 965, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 841). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; 3212; see also, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Gold-stein v County of Monroe, 77 AD2d 232). Plaintiff’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue concerning whether defendant had assumed a duty to him to instruct him properly and whether the alleged breach of that duty left plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than he otherwise would have been in, thereby contributing to his injury (cf., Jansen v Fidelity & Cas. Co., 165 AD2d 223, lv granted 78 NY2d 853; Kingsland v Factory Mut. Sys., 145 AD2d 965, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 841). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1069, 580 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moors-v-travelers-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack