Presley v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Presley v. Williams

57 A.D.2d 947, 395 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12221

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 947 (Presley v. Williams) 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

Presley v. Williams, 57 A.D.2d 947, 395 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 11, 1977, which denied appellant’s motion to withdraw as attorney for the defendant on the ground that the latter’s insurance company had disclaimed coverage. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff payable by appellant. An attorney cannot use a motion to withdraw as a means of determining the validity of an insurance company’s disclaimer (Brothers v Burt, 27 NY2d 905). However, Special Term was premature in determining that the insurance company was estopped from disclaiming liability. The appropriate vehicle to resolve that issue is a declaratory judgment action. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 11, 1977, which denied appellant’s motion to withdraw as attorney for the defendant on the ground that the latter’s insurance company had disclaimed coverage. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff payable by appellant. An attorney cannot use a motion to withdraw as a means of determining the validity of an insurance company’s disclaimer (Brothers v Burt, 27 NY2d 905). However, Special Term was premature in determining that the insurance company was estopped from disclaiming liability. The appropriate vehicle to resolve that issue is a declaratory judgment action. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 947, 395 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presley-v-williams-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack