Ventrelli v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ventrelli v. Allstate Insurance

250 A.D.2d 836, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 836 (Ventrelli v. Allstate 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

Ventrelli v. Allstate Insurance, 250 A.D.2d 836, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant was obligated to provide the plaintiffs with supplementary uninsured motorist benefits in the amount of $100,000, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated June 23, 1997, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in their favor and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to provide the plaintiffs with supplementary uninsured motorist benefits in the amount of $100,000.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether they were notified in writing of the availability of supplementary uninsured motorist coverage and the limits being offered, as required, inter alia, by Insurance Law § 3420 (f).

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the defendant rather than dismissal of the complaint (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, cert denied 371 US 901). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant was obligated to provide the plaintiffs with supplementary uninsured motorist benefits in the amount of $100,000, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated June 23, 1997, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in their favor and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to provide the plaintiffs with supplementary uninsured motorist benefits in the amount of $100,000.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether they were notified in writing of the availability of supplementary uninsured motorist coverage and the limits being offered, as required, inter alia, by Insurance Law § 3420 (f).

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the defendant rather than dismissal of the complaint (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, cert denied 371 US 901). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 836, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventrelli-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack