From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K T Dev. Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1976
54 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

October 25, 1976


In an action on an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 10, 1976, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on March 9, 1976. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The affidavits submitted by plaintiff were insufficient to raise a triable issue as to defendant's waiver of the limitation provision set forth in the policy. Since there was no indication that plaintiff was misled by defendant's conduct, defendant was not estopped from raising the 12-month limitation provision (see Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 A.D.2d 634). Gulotta, P.J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

K T Dev. Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1976
54 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

K T Dev. Co. v. Quincey Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:K T DEVELOPMENT CO., Appellant, v. QUINCEY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 25, 1976

Citations

54 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Van Hoesen v. Penn. Millers Mutual Ins. Co.

ntrolling herein (see CPLR 201; see, also, Proc v. Home Ins. Co., 17 N.Y.2d 239). Nor do we find any support…

Van Hoesen v. Hogan

(CPLR 201; Kassner Co. v City of New York, 46 N.Y.2d 544.) Plaintiff's contentions regarding estoppel are…