Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PATRIOT FORD, LTD., Respondent, v. MIC PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CORP., Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered September 30, 1999, as denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first, second, and third causes of action on the ground of untimeliness.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The attorney for the defendant insurance carrier signed a letter indicating his consent to execute a “final tolling agreement” upon terms he and the plaintiff's attorney had previously agreed upon. According to the plaintiff, the agreement allegedly tolled the time to commence an action upon its first three causes of action until sometime beyond the date the instant action was, in fact, commenced.
It is undisputed that no written agreement was ever executed, and neither party submitted evidentiary proof as to the terms of the final tolling agreement. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly determined that there are questions of fact surrounding the issue of the existence of a final tolling agreement sufficient to preclude the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; cf., Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 525 N.Y.S.2d 793, 520 N.E.2d 512; Tymon v. Linoki, 16 N.Y.2d 293, 266 N.Y.S.2d 357, 213 N.E.2d 661; Turkish Socy. of Rochester v. Cimino, 192 A.D.2d 1121, 596 N.Y.S.2d 277).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 06, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)