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

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 17 (Stack's Rare Coins v. Federal 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

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

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]*18dently 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]*18dently 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 17, 604 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacks-rare-coins-v-federal-insurance-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack