Polak v. Farley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polak v. Farley

295 A.D.2d 961, 745 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 961 (Polak v. Farley) 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

Polak v. Farley, 295 A.D.2d 961, 745 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered April 19, 2001, which granted the motion of plaintiff Dawn M. Polak for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the counterclaim is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they sustained when a vehicle owned by Stanley Dorka, Jr. and driven by defendant Joan M. Karczewski allegedly failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with their vehicle. Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of Dawn M. Polak (plaintiff) seeking summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against her. In support of her motion, plaintiff asserted that the insurance adjuster for Dorka had accepted full responsibility for- plaintiffs’ property damage claim, orally and in writing, during the adjustment of that claim. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, statements made by an insurance adjuster in an attempt to settle a claim prior to the commencement of an action on a related claim “are not [962]*962admissible as a concession of liability” in the action (Collins v Hayden on Hudson Condominium, 223 AD2d 434, 435). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered April 19, 2001, which granted the motion of plaintiff Dawn M. Polak for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the counterclaim is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they sustained when a vehicle owned by Stanley Dorka, Jr. and driven by defendant Joan M. Karczewski allegedly failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with their vehicle. Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of Dawn M. Polak (plaintiff) seeking summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against her. In support of her motion, plaintiff asserted that the insurance adjuster for Dorka had accepted full responsibility for- plaintiffs’ property damage claim, orally and in writing, during the adjustment of that claim. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, statements made by an insurance adjuster in an attempt to settle a claim prior to the commencement of an action on a related claim “are not [962]*962admissible as a concession of liability” in the action (Collins v Hayden on Hudson Condominium, 223 AD2d 434, 435). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 961, 745 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polak-v-farley-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack