From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1976
55 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

December 20, 1976


In an action to declare whether the appellant validly and timely disclaimed liability under a certain insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 9, 1975, which, upon a stipulated statement of facts and certain exhibits, declared that appellant was required to appear on behalf of the defendants Pena and Alvarez, to defend both the main action and the cross claim of codefendant Jensky, and to provide them coverage. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is declared that the disclaimers of liability issued by the appellant were proper and effective as to all parties. It is our opinion that any and all notices of the accident herein given to the insurer were untimely as a matter of law, and were properly rejected by the appellant for that reason (see Miranda v Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 51 A.D.2d 1035). Latham, Acting P.J., Damiani, Hawkins and O'Connor, JJ., concur. [ 84 Misc.2d 270.]


Summaries of

Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1976
55 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Pensky v. Aetna Life and Casualty Company

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN PENSKY et al., Respondents, v. AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY…

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

Date published: Dec 20, 1976

Citations

55 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Parlato v. Interport Trucking Co.

As a matter of law, the notice was too late. See Security Mutual Insurance Co. of N.Y. v. Acker-Fitzsimons…