From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crossett v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1988
144 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 15, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Donovan, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in denying the motion of codefendants Paul Sweeney and Paul R. Sweeney Agency, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against them. Plaintiffs elected their remedy by seeking and securing the penalty order pursuant to CPLR 3126 against codefendant Dixon, which established that there was a policy of insurance in effect at the time plaintiffs' property was destroyed by fire, and by thereafter obtaining a default judgment against him. Plaintiffs cannot now proceed against appellants on the theory that they breached a duty to obtain such policy (see, Simon v. Boyer, 51 A.D.2d 879, affd 41 N.Y.2d 822; see generally, 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y. Prac ch 10). The order appealed from is modified to grant summary judgment to appellants and to strike the last decretal paragraph.


Summaries of

Crossett v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1988
144 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Crossett v. Sweeney

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM W. CROSSETT, III, et al., Respondents, v. PAUL SWEENEY et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Herman v. 36 Gramercy Park Realty Assocs., LLC

That said, there is authority that stands for the proposition that where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to…

Herman v. 36 Gramercy Park Realty Assocs., LLC

That said, there is authority that stands for the proposition that where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to…