Vasco v. Merchants Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasco v. Merchants Insurance

210 A.D.2d 397, 620 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12962

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 397 (Vasco v. Merchants 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

Vasco v. Merchants Insurance, 210 A.D.2d 397, 620 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated June 8, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v [398]*398Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there is a triable issue of fact with reference to either the defendant’s liability under the subject insurance policy or the defendant’s purported agreement to pay "any judgment” against its insured regardless of whether the judgment was covered by the policy (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated June 8, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v [398]*398Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there is a triable issue of fact with reference to either the defendant’s liability under the subject insurance policy or the defendant’s purported agreement to pay "any judgment” against its insured regardless of whether the judgment was covered by the policy (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 397, 620 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasco-v-merchants-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack