Powell v. All City Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. All City Insurance

74 A.D.2d 942, 426 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 942 (Powell v. All City 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

Powell v. All City Insurance, 74 A.D.2d 942, 426 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, entered November 13, 1979 and December 12, 1979 in Columbia County, which ordered the case to trial. Respondent had a judgment rendered against her in the sum of $78,000 as the result of an accident involving her automobile. Appellant insured respondent’s vehicle and defended -the suit. The verdict greatly exceeded the policy coverage. Respondent, in January, 1977, commenced the instant action alleging failure of appellant to negotiate in good faith for a settlement of the accident suit. Respondent obtained a trial preference. Thereafter, in August, 1977, the Supreme Court, New York County, adjudged appellant to be insolvent and ordered it into rehabilitation under article 16 of the Insurance Law. The order enjoined all persons "from bringing or further prosecuting any action * * * against the said corporation or its assets”. Subsequently, Justice Asch denied a vacatur of the stay. On November 12, 1979, the first of the appealed orders was made by the Supreme Court, Columbia County, directing the commencement of the trial of the action on November 15, 1979. By the second order appealed from, Justice Williams postponed the start of the trial to January 28, 1980. There must be a reversal. It is well established that one Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction should not vacate, modify or depart from the ruling or order made by a colleague of equal rank in the same case (CPLR 2221; Matter of Weiss v Commissioner of Office of Drug Abuse Servs., 64 AD2d 768, affd 47 NY2d 835; Matter of Haas, 33 AD2d 1). Furthermore, the orders contravene the intent and purpose of article 16 of the Insurance Law, which is designed [943]*943to insure an orderly, court supervised proceeding (Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 AD2d 531). We have examined all arguments advanced by respondent for affirmance and find them unpersuasive. Orders reversed, on the law, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, entered November 13, 1979 and December 12, 1979 in Columbia County, which ordered the case to trial. Respondent had a judgment rendered against her in the sum of $78,000 as the result of an accident involving her automobile. Appellant insured respondent’s vehicle and defended -the suit. The verdict greatly exceeded the policy coverage. Respondent, in January, 1977, commenced the instant action alleging failure of appellant to negotiate in good faith for a settlement of the accident suit. Respondent obtained a trial preference. Thereafter, in August, 1977, the Supreme Court, New York County, adjudged appellant to be insolvent and ordered it into rehabilitation under article 16 of the Insurance Law. The order enjoined all persons "from bringing or further prosecuting any action * * * against the said corporation or its assets”. Subsequently, Justice Asch denied a vacatur of the stay. On November 12, 1979, the first of the appealed orders was made by the Supreme Court, Columbia County, directing the commencement of the trial of the action on November 15, 1979. By the second order appealed from, Justice Williams postponed the start of the trial to January 28, 1980. There must be a reversal. It is well established that one Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction should not vacate, modify or depart from the ruling or order made by a colleague of equal rank in the same case (CPLR 2221; Matter of Weiss v Commissioner of Office of Drug Abuse Servs., 64 AD2d 768, affd 47 NY2d 835; Matter of Haas, 33 AD2d 1). Furthermore, the orders contravene the intent and purpose of article 16 of the Insurance Law, which is designed [943]*943to insure an orderly, court supervised proceeding (Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 AD2d 531). We have examined all arguments advanced by respondent for affirmance and find them unpersuasive. Orders reversed, on the law, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 942, 426 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-all-city-insurance-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack