Legal Opinion

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Co.

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

Decided October 2, 1998PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant established its initial entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent under the underinsured motorist’s coverage of the insurance policy (see, Sulner v G.A. Ins. Co., 224 AD2d 205, 205-206, lv denied 88 NY2d 805; see also, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 688, 690-691). Plaintiff, however, raised an issue of fact whether defendant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Sulner v. G.A. InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. MacQuesten General Contracting, Inc. v. HCE, INC.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API