Shaiman v. Hartford Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaiman v. Hartford Insurance

225 A.D.2d 507, 639 N.Y.2d 387, 639 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 507 (Shaiman v. Hartford 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

Shaiman v. Hartford Insurance, 225 A.D.2d 507, 639 N.Y.2d 387, 639 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[508]*508The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissal to the extent indicated since plaintiffs fail to raise a genuine triable issue of fact regarding either the enforcement of the exclusionary vacancy clause of the policy or the validity of the notice of cancellation. As to the former, the property was vacant for a period of more than 60 consecutive days prior to the December 4, 1990 fire loss. As to the latter, plaintiffs acknowledged receiving the notice of cancellation which became effective prior to the February 1991 fire loss. Admissions by plaintiff Shaiman were sufficient to sustain defendant’s burden of proof. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

[508]*508The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissal to the extent indicated since plaintiffs fail to raise a genuine triable issue of fact regarding either the enforcement of the exclusionary vacancy clause of the policy or the validity of the notice of cancellation. As to the former, the property was vacant for a period of more than 60 consecutive days prior to the December 4, 1990 fire loss. As to the latter, plaintiffs acknowledged receiving the notice of cancellation which became effective prior to the February 1991 fire loss. Admissions by plaintiff Shaiman were sufficient to sustain defendant’s burden of proof. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 507, 639 N.Y.2d 387, 639 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaiman-v-hartford-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.