Mano Enters., Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Mano Enters., Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

    169 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Renwick, J.P., Tom, Singh, Moulton, JJ.Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered January 11, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.We previously determined that an issue of fact existed as to whether defendant appropriately refused to process the assignment of the subject policy (see 143 A.D.3d 597, 39 N.Y.S.3d 754 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this issue has been resolved since our prior decision.

  2. Sicoli v. Riverside Ctr. Parcel 2 Bit Assocs., LLC

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    That part of defendants' motion seeking leave to renew plaintiffs' oral application for the production of unredacted accident report, was properly denied. Defendants did not demonstrate the existence of new facts warranting a change in the motion court's prior determination (see CPLR 2221[e][2] ; Mano Enters., Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d 597, 39 N.Y.S.3d 754 [1st Dept.2016] ). Furthermore we see no reason to alter the court's discovery ruling.

  3. Mano Enters. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32805 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department agreed that an issue of fact existed as to whether MetLife's refusal to process the assignment to Jaffa was appropriate. (Mano Enters., Inc. v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 143 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2016] [Mano I]). However, the Court modified by dismissing the third cause of action, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  4. Mano Enters., Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff claims that defendant wrongfully prevented plaintiff from assigning the policy at issue to a third party which resulted in the lapse of the policy due to nonpayment of premium. The Appellate Division, First Department has previously held that "[t]here is an issue of fact as to whether defendant appropriately refused to process the assignment of the policy" (Mano Enterprises, Inc. v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 143 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2016] citing Ashwood Capital, Inc. v OTG Mgmt, Inc., 99 AD3d 1, 7-8 [1st Dept 2012]). Familiarity with the underlying facts is presumed.