New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Corey Banks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Corey Banks

241 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7320

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 368 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Corey Banks) 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

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Corey Banks, 241 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1995, which granted cross motions to confirm a Referee report recommending a judgment declaring that neither plaintiff insurer nor defendant-respondent insurer had issued a policy to defendant Cedeno on the date of the underlying incident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Referee determination is supported by the record, and there is no basis for disturbing it (see, Matter of 600 W. 161st St. Corp. [Lai], 220 AD2d 301). The insurers demonstrated with “sufficient proof’ that they did not insure the subject vehicle on the relevant date (see, Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. [Glaude], 208 AD2d 376), each of them having searched for possible coverage with over a half-dozen different search strategies (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Karadag, 205 AD2d 531, 532). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1995, which granted cross motions to confirm a Referee report recommending a judgment declaring that neither plaintiff insurer nor defendant-respondent insurer had issued a policy to defendant Cedeno on the date of the underlying incident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Referee determination is supported by the record, and there is no basis for disturbing it (see, Matter of 600 W. 161st St. Corp. [Lai], 220 AD2d 301). The insurers demonstrated with “sufficient proof’ that they did not insure the subject vehicle on the relevant date (see, Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. [Glaude], 208 AD2d 376), each of them having searched for possible coverage with over a half-dozen different search strategies (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Karadag, 205 AD2d 531, 532). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-corey-banks-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack