Plantz v. Wayne Cooperative Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plantz v. Wayne Cooperative Insurance

5 A.D.3d 1001, 773 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2862

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 1001 (Plantz v. Wayne Cooperative 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

Plantz v. Wayne Cooperative Insurance, 5 A.D.3d 1001, 773 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), entered September 18, 2002. The order, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a declaratory judgment action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm, and we note that, as we previously wrote in Kumar v Travelers Ins. Co. (211 AD2d 128, 132 [1995]), the insurer’s “agreement to pay the full cost to repair or replace the damaged dwelling with equivalent construction on the same premises merely establishes the limits of coverage . . . The insured is not required ... to replace the damaged dwelling on the same premises in order to recover replacement cost.” Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), entered September 18, 2002. The order, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a declaratory judgment action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm, and we note that, as we previously wrote in Kumar v Travelers Ins. Co. (211 AD2d 128, 132 [1995]), the insurer’s “agreement to pay the full cost to repair or replace the damaged dwelling with equivalent construction on the same premises merely establishes the limits of coverage . . . The insured is not required ... to replace the damaged dwelling on the same premises in order to recover replacement cost.” Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 1001, 773 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plantz-v-wayne-cooperative-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack