Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marc Henig v. Bruno

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


December 23, 2010

MARC HENIG,
APPELLANT,
v.
BRUNO, GERBINO & SORIANO, LLP,
RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated September 9, 2009.

Henig v. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 23, 2010

PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ

The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff alleges that defendant law firm misled his insurer, Encompass Insurance Company (Encompass), regarding his ownership of a vehicle which had allegedly been stolen from him. Defendant, as counsel for Encompass, had conducted an examination under oath (EUO) of plaintiff, who had filed a claim with Encompass following the alleged theft of his 1990 Lincoln Town Car. After the EUO was held, Encompass denied plaintiff's claim based upon his failure to demonstrate that he had an insurable interest in the subject vehicle at the time of the alleged loss. Defendant moved to dismiss this small claims action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (10). The District Court granted defendant's motion, and the instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Our review is limited to whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). Upon our review of the motion papers, we find that defendant's motion to dismiss the action was properly granted, as plaintiff failed to articulate any cognizable cause of action against defendant which would entitle him to relief. Accordingly, there is no basis for this court to reverse the District Court's order dismissing the action.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Decision Date:December 23, 2010

20101223

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.