Spurt Messenger Service, Inc. v. Gudde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spurt Messenger Service, Inc. v. Gudde

216 A.D.2d 111, 628 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6346

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

DecidedJune 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 111 (Spurt Messenger Service, Inc. v. Gudde) 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

Spurt Messenger Service, Inc. v. Gudde, 216 A.D.2d 111, 628 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of, inter alia, the fact that defendant failed to satisfactorily establish that it would not have issued the instant policy had it been aware of the applicant’s alleged misrepresentations concerning its use of bicycle messengers, summary judgment was properly denied since there is a question as to whether the alleged misrepresentations were material and thus sufficient to void the instant policy (see, Courtney v Dollar Sav. Bank, 54 AD2d 868, 869). Indeed, defendant insurer failed to provide any evidence of its policy and underwriting practices with respect to applicants whose businesses utilized bicycle messengers (see, Di Pippo v Prudential Ins. Co., 88 AD2d 631). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of, inter alia, the fact that defendant failed to satisfactorily establish that it would not have issued the instant policy had it been aware of the applicant’s alleged misrepresentations concerning its use of bicycle messengers, summary judgment was properly denied since there is a question as to whether the alleged misrepresentations were material and thus sufficient to void the instant policy (see, Courtney v Dollar Sav. Bank, 54 AD2d 868, 869). Indeed, defendant insurer failed to provide any evidence of its policy and underwriting practices with respect to applicants whose businesses utilized bicycle messengers (see, Di Pippo v Prudential Ins. Co., 88 AD2d 631). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 111, 628 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurt-messenger-service-inc-v-gudde-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack