Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney

194 A.D.2d 465, 599 N.Y.S.2d 963

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 17, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and codefendants’ cross-claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action alleging failure to procure insurance coverage, defendant-insurer did not meet its burden of setting forth evidentiary facts warranting dismissal as a matter of law, as the affidavit of codefendant’s president and defendant-appellant’s letter of April 24, 1985 presented issues of fact as to whether codefendant-broker was empowered to act as the insurer’s agent to bind the coverage herein. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney, 194 A.D.2d 465, 599 N.Y.S.2d 963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

194 A.D.2d 465 (Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.