Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co.

55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15386

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 640 (Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co.) 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

Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., 55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare whether the appellant validly and timely disclaimed liability under a certain insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 9, 1975, which, upon a stipulated statement of facts and certain exhibits, declared that appellant was required to appear on behalf of the defendants Pena and Alvarez, to defend both the main action and the cross claim of codefendant Jensky, and to provide them coverage. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is declared that the disclaimers of liability issued by the appellant were proper and effective as to all parties. It is our opinion that any and all notices of the accident herein given to the insurer were untimely as a matter of law, and were properly rejected by the appellant for that reason (see Miranda v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 51 AD2d 1035). Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur. [84 Misc 2d 270.]

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

In an action to declare whether the appellant validly and timely disclaimed liability under a certain insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 9, 1975, which, upon a stipulated statement of facts and certain exhibits, declared that appellant was required to appear on behalf of the defendants Pena and Alvarez, to defend both the main action and the cross claim of codefendant Jensky, and to provide them coverage. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is declared that the disclaimers of liability issued by the appellant were proper and effective as to all parties. It is our opinion that any and all notices of the accident herein given to the insurer were untimely as a matter of law, and were properly rejected by the appellant for that reason (see Miranda v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 51 AD2d 1035). Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur. [84 Misc 2d 270.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pensky-v-aetna-life-and-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack