Radicia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Radicia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

145 A.D.2d 994, 536 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14212

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A.D.2d 994 (Radicia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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

Radicia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 145 A.D.2d 994, 536 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the follbwitig memorandum: Plaintiffs have sued to recover a loss that they allege was covered by their homeowner’s policy, issued by defendant. Defendant denied coverage, contending that plaintiffs have willfully concealed or misrepresented material facts with respect to their loss. Defendant was granted a protective order with respect to por[995]*995tians of plaintiffs’ interrogatories. We modify to extend the protective order to cover interrogatory 59 (A-E). Information with respect to disputes with other policyholders is neither material nor necessary to this action (CPLR 3101 [a]) because plaintiffs’ allegation of bad faith relates only to defendant’s disclaimer of coverage on their claim (Town of Nassau v Phoenix Assur. Co., 57 AD2d 992, 993). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — discovery.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the follbwitig memorandum: Plaintiffs have sued to recover a loss that they allege was covered by their homeowner’s policy, issued by defendant. Defendant denied coverage, contending that plaintiffs have willfully concealed or misrepresented material facts with respect to their loss. Defendant was granted a protective order with respect to por[995]*995tians of plaintiffs’ interrogatories. We modify to extend the protective order to cover interrogatory 59 (A-E). Information with respect to disputes with other policyholders is neither material nor necessary to this action (CPLR 3101 [a]) because plaintiffs’ allegation of bad faith relates only to defendant’s disclaimer of coverage on their claim (Town of Nassau v Phoenix Assur. Co., 57 AD2d 992, 993). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — discovery.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 994, 536 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radicia-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack