Legal Opinion
Troll v. Glantz
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided May 6, 1968PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
Since the policy required written notice to the
company of any accident as soon as practical and the proof of mailing was insufficient (Gardam & Son v. Batterson, 198 N. Y. 175, 178-179), we find no error in the dismissal of the complaint as: to the defendant insurance company.
Nor was it error to dismiss the complaint as to the individual defendant insofar as it charged malpractice in the conduct of the litigation, there being no proof that the plaintiff herein had a good defense to the action (McAleenan v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 232 N. Y. 199, 204; see, also, Schmitt v. McMillan,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Conklin v. DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- William Gardam & Son v. BattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Tulloch v. HaseloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- McAleenan v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Schmitt v. McMillanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gilbert Properties, Inc. v. MillsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Ingvoldstad v. Estate of YoungDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1982
- Marine Midland Trust Co. of the Mohawk Valley v. Penberthy, De Iorio & RayhillNew York Supreme Court · 1969
- Instrument Systems Corp. v. Whitman, Ransom & CoulsonNew York Supreme Court · 1974
- Gilbert Properties, Inc. v. MillsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972