Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney

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

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

DecidedJune 22, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 465 (Sherland & Farrington, Inc. v. Meaney) 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

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 465, 599 N.Y.S.2d 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherland-farrington-inc-v-meaney-nyappdiv-1993.