From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manning v. Peerless Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1999
265 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

October 1, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Settlement.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in approving settlement of the third-party action. Although plaintiff failed to obtain the consent of defendant Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) prior to settling the third-party action, he timely made a motion for a compromise order pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). Plaintiff established that the third-party action was settled for the limit of the liability policy (see, Borrowman v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 198 A.D.2d 891) and that there was little likelihood of collecting anything in excess of the insurance proceeds from the 24-year-old driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. We conclude that Peerless was not prejudiced by the delay in seeking judicial approval (see, Borrowman v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., supra) and that plaintiff's papers satisfactorily complied with the statutory requirements (see, Merrill v. Moultrie, 166 A.D.2d 392, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 804).

PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, WISNER, CALLAHAN AND BALIO, JJ.


Summaries of

Manning v. Peerless Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1999
265 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Manning v. Peerless Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY F. MANNING, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Musleh v. Roger Carter, Inc.

The terms of the settlement must be reasonable under the attendant circumstances (see Buchanan v Scoville,…

Mueller v. Elliott

We agree with Sedgwick that, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5), either carrier consent or…