Stack's Rare Coins v. Federal Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stack's Rare Coins v. Federal Insurance

199 A.D.2d 17, 604 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11182

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about January 8, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the applicable policies exclude damage to the property of others while in the care, custody or control of plaintiff, defendant had the right to disclaim and not defend when plaintiff was sued for damage to a rare coin consigned to it. The rule is not otherwise merely because the insurer indepen[18] dently acquires knowledge that the allegations of the complaint may not be true (Chmiel v Continental Cas. Co., 177 AD2d 1022).

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was obliged to defend, it discharged that obligation by virtue of its payment, resulting in an accord and satisfaction, to the law firm retained by plaintiff. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about January 8, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the applicable policies exclude damage to the property of others while in the care, custody or control of plaintiff, defendant had the right to disclaim and not defend when plaintiff was sued for damage to a rare coin consigned to it. The rule is not otherwise merely because the insurer indepen[18] dently acquires knowledge that the allegations of the complaint may not be true (Chmiel v Continental Cas. Co., 177 AD2d 1022).

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was obliged to defend, it discharged that obligation by virtue of its payment, resulting in an accord and satisfaction, to the law firm retained by plaintiff. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Stack's Rare Coins v. Federal Insurance, 199 A.D.2d 17, 604 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 17 (Stack's Rare Coins v. Federal Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related