New York University v. Continental Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York University v. Continental Insurance

209 A.D.2d 231, 618 N.Y.S.2d 634

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 231 (New York University v. Continental 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

New York University v. Continental Insurance, 209 A.D.2d 231, 618 N.Y.S.2d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered June 18, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second through fifth causes of action of the complaint and to strike the demand for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint adequately states a cause of action against defendants for breach of the instant insurance contract. The pleadings supplemented by evidence proffered by plaintiff adequately allege, for purposes of the instant motion, that defendants also engaged in egregious tortious misconduct directed at plaintiff and at the public in general. Accordingly, punitive damages may be recoverable in this action (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Similarly, a cause of action sounding in deception, in violation of General Business Law § 349, has been satisfactorily pled [232]*232(see, Riordan v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 F2d 47, 52). We also note that while a significant part of plaintiffs section 349 claim is based upon defendants’ violation of Insurance Law § 2601, the section 349 claim is not undermined by the fact that a private cause of action does not exist under section 2601 (supra).

We have considered all other claims raised by defendant and find them meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered June 18, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second through fifth causes of action of the complaint and to strike the demand for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint adequately states a cause of action against defendants for breach of the instant insurance contract. The pleadings supplemented by evidence proffered by plaintiff adequately allege, for purposes of the instant motion, that defendants also engaged in egregious tortious misconduct directed at plaintiff and at the public in general. Accordingly, punitive damages may be recoverable in this action (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Similarly, a cause of action sounding in deception, in violation of General Business Law § 349, has been satisfactorily pled [232]*232(see, Riordan v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 F2d 47, 52). We also note that while a significant part of plaintiffs section 349 claim is based upon defendants’ violation of Insurance Law § 2601, the section 349 claim is not undermined by the fact that a private cause of action does not exist under section 2601 (supra).

We have considered all other claims raised by defendant and find them meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 231, 618 N.Y.S.2d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-university-v-continental-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack