Case Name: Sherland & Farrington, Inc., Respondent, v. Thomas R. Meaney et al., Individually and Doing Business as Edward E. Hall & Co., Respondents, and General Accident Insurance Company of America, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-06-22
Citations: 194 A.D.2d 465
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sherland & Farrington, Inc., Respondent, v Thomas R. Meaney et al., Individually and Doing Business as Edward E. Hall & Co., Respondents, and General Accident Insurance Company of America, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Sherland & Farrington, Inc., Respondent, v Thomas R. Meaney et al., Individually and Doing Business as Edward E. Hall & Co., Respondents, and General Accident Insurance Company of America, Appellant.
[599 NYS2d 963]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 17, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and codefendants' cross-claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action alleging failure to procure insurance coverage, defendant-insurer did not meet its burden of setting forth evidentiary facts warranting dismissal as a matter of law, as the affidavit of codefendant's president and defendant-appellant's letter of April 24, 1985 presented issues of fact as to whether codefendant-broker was empowered to act as the insurer's agent to bind the coverage herein. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.