Woodruff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodruff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

130 A.D.2d 976, 516 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46962

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

DecidedMay 22, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 976 (Woodruff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Woodruff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 130 A.D.2d 976, 516 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s motion to dismiss second cause of action granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs second cause of action against his insurer seeking punitive damages and damages for embarrassment because of the insurer’s refusal to pay for a fire loss should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (see, Philips v Republic Ins. Co., 108 AD2d 845, affd for reasons stated in App Div 65 NY2d 1000). Insofar as the second cause of action attempts to plead a cause of action for defamation, it is also deficient. It fails to allege publication (see, Rozanski v Fitch, 113 AD2d 1010) and further it fails to allege the particular words complained of (see, CPLR 3016; Kahn v Friedlander, 90 AD2d 868, 869). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Yates County, DePasquale, J.—dismiss cause of action.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s motion to dismiss second cause of action granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs second cause of action against his insurer seeking punitive damages and damages for embarrassment because of the insurer’s refusal to pay for a fire loss should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (see, Philips v Republic Ins. Co., 108 AD2d 845, affd for reasons stated in App Div 65 NY2d 1000). Insofar as the second cause of action attempts to plead a cause of action for defamation, it is also deficient. It fails to allege publication (see, Rozanski v Fitch, 113 AD2d 1010) and further it fails to allege the particular words complained of (see, CPLR 3016; Kahn v Friedlander, 90 AD2d 868, 869). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Yates County, DePasquale, J.—dismiss cause of action.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 976, 516 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack