Siegel v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Allstate Insurance

248 A.D.2d 171, 670 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2366

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from a memorandum decision (denominated an order), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered September 25, 1996, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

An appeal does not lie from a mere decision such as the paper from which defendant purports to appeal (see, Talcott Factors v Larfred, Inc., 115 AD2d 397, Iv dismissed 67 NY2d 604; Matter of Conforti & Eisele [William J. Scully, Inc.], 98 AD2d 646, Iv denied 61 NY2d 606). Were we to deem the appeal properly taken from a duly entered appealable order or judgment, we would uphold a grant of summary judgment to plaintiff to the extent of declaring that defendant is obligated to provide plaintiff a defense in the underlying action. There is no indication in the record that defendant insurer ever mailed plaintiff insured the exclusion upon which defendant would now rely (see, Insurance Law § 3425 [d] [1]), and it is undisputed that the policy as originally issued obligated defendant to provide plaintiff a defense in the underlying tort action.

Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a memorandum decision (denominated an order), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered September 25, 1996, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

An appeal does not lie from a mere decision such as the paper from which defendant purports to appeal (see, Talcott Factors v Larfred, Inc., 115 AD2d 397, Iv dismissed 67 NY2d 604; Matter of Conforti & Eisele [William J. Scully, Inc.], 98 AD2d 646, Iv denied 61 NY2d 606). Were we to deem the appeal properly taken from a duly entered appealable order or judgment, we would uphold a grant of summary judgment to plaintiff to the extent of declaring that defendant is obligated to provide plaintiff a defense in the underlying action. There is no indication in the record that defendant insurer ever mailed plaintiff insured the exclusion upon which defendant would now rely (see, Insurance Law § 3425 [d] [1]), and it is undisputed that the policy as originally issued obligated defendant to provide plaintiff a defense in the underlying tort action.

Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Siegel v. Allstate Insurance, 248 A.D.2d 171, 670 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 171 (Siegel v. Allstate Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related