Zamiello v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zamiello v. Allstate Insurance

262 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6657

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 480 (Zamiello 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

Zamiello v. Allstate Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover on an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated October 22, 1998, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $101,384.72.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s disclaimer of coverage failed to comply with the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420 (d), and was thus ineffective to relieve the appellant of its obligation to pay the underlying money judgment entered against its insured (see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, 199 AD2d 507). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover on an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated October 22, 1998, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $101,384.72.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s disclaimer of coverage failed to comply with the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420 (d), and was thus ineffective to relieve the appellant of its obligation to pay the underlying money judgment entered against its insured (see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, 199 AD2d 507). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamiello-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack