Whiting National Insurance Co. v. Maiorino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whiting National Insurance Co. v. Maiorino

166 A.D.2d 704, 561 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 704 (Whiting National Insurance Co. v. Maiorino) 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

Whiting National Insurance Co. v. Maiorino, 166 A.D.2d 704, 561 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties under an insurance contract issued by the plaintiff Whiting National Insurance Company, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered June 13, 1988, which, after a hearing, is in favor of the defendants declaring, inter alia, that "the plaintiff owes defendants, Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S. and Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S., P.C., both a defense and indemnification up to the applicable limits of and under the terms and conditions of its contract of insurance with said defendants in the action known as Patricia Dionian, et ano v. Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S., et al, pending in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 86-13688”.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The record amply supports the Supreme Court’s determination that Robert C. Maiorino, the defendant insured, gave timely notice to the plaintiff insurer concerning the dental malpractice claim made against him (see, Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Goldfarb, 53 NY2d 392, 397-398). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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 the rights of the parties under an insurance contract issued by the plaintiff Whiting National Insurance Company, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered June 13, 1988, which, after a hearing, is in favor of the defendants declaring, inter alia, that "the plaintiff owes defendants, Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S. and Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S., P.C., both a defense and indemnification up to the applicable limits of and under the terms and conditions of its contract of insurance with said defendants in the action known as Patricia Dionian, et ano v. Robert C. Maiorino, D.D.S., et al, pending in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 86-13688”.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The record amply supports the Supreme Court’s determination that Robert C. Maiorino, the defendant insured, gave timely notice to the plaintiff insurer concerning the dental malpractice claim made against him (see, Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Goldfarb, 53 NY2d 392, 397-398). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 704, 561 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiting-national-insurance-co-v-maiorino-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack