Legal Opinion

Grittano v. Flannery

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1959PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohn E. Cone, J.

The attorneys for defendant Inocencio, having heretofore appeared in this action on his behalf at the behest of said defendant’s insurance carrier, make this motion for leave to withdraw as attorneys on the ground that the carrier has since disclaimed liability due to the assured’s alleged violations relating to timely notice and co-operation provided for in the covering auto liability policy. The instant motion was brought after the attorneys entered their appearance and accepted service of the complaint, but prior to the expiration of the time to answer. Apparently, no answer has yet been…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dunn v. Hudson River Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
  2. Bailey v. CoventryNew York Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Cenetempo v. RaiaNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Seleznow v. ShubCity of New York Municipal Court · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Central Cab Co. v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  2. Isser v. BergNew York Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Galante v. DahlstromNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Murphy v. SolomonNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  5. McKelvey v. OltmannNew York Supreme Court · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API