Sinclair's Deli, Inc. v. Associated Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinclair's Deli, Inc. v. Associated Mutual Insurance

196 A.D.2d 644, 601 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309

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

DecidedAugust 30, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 644 (Sinclair's Deli, Inc. v. Associated Mutual 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

Sinclair's Deli, Inc. v. Associated Mutual Insurance, 196 A.D.2d 644, 601 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

In an action to recover insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 21, 1990, which granted the motion of defendant Bernard Fleischer Associates, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to establish that it was in privity with the defendant Bernard Fleischer Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Fleischer), or that the parties were in a relationship sufficiently approaching privity. Thus, Fleischer may not be held liable for its alleged negligent misrepresentations to the plaintiff (see, Security Pac. Bus. Credit v Peat Marwick Main & Co., 79 NY2d 695; W. C. Humphreys, Inc. v Zurich Ins. Co., 54 Mise 2d 659). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 21, 1990, which granted the motion of defendant Bernard Fleischer Associates, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to establish that it was in privity with the defendant Bernard Fleischer Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Fleischer), or that the parties were in a relationship sufficiently approaching privity. Thus, Fleischer may not be held liable for its alleged negligent misrepresentations to the plaintiff (see, Security Pac. Bus. Credit v Peat Marwick Main & Co., 79 NY2d 695; W. C. Humphreys, Inc. v Zurich Ins. Co., 54 Mise 2d 659). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 644, 601 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclairs-deli-inc-v-associated-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack