sum claim in New York

1899The court says : “ This assessment or premium was paid by the beneficiary pursuant to a demand by the defendant after proofs of death liad been received, after the defendant knew of the statement of age made to the Industrial Benefit Association, and after the defendant knew that she had untruly stated that she was not insured in any other corporation or association, and the acceptance of this sum was a waiver of all defenses then known to exist.” In the case of Titus v. Glens Falls Insurance Company ( 81 N. Y. 410 ), which was an action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance, which contai

1899The court say: “This assessment or premium was paid by the beneficiary pursuant to the demand of the defendant, after proofs of death had been received," and after the defendant knew of the statement of age made to the Industrial Benefit Association, and after the defendant knew that she had untruly stated that she was not insured in any other corporation or association, and the acceptance of this sum was a waiver of all defenses then known to exist.” In the case of Titus v. Insurance Co., 81 N. Y. 410 , which was an action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance, which contained a, conditi

1899In the case of Mutual Benefit Association v. Beck ( 77 Ind. 203 ) the court say, per Woods, J.: “ The logical and necessary deduction from this doctrine is that a distinct act of affirmance of the contract by the party entitled to avoid it, made with knowledge of the facts, and especially such acts as the demand and receipt of premiums or assessments, would constitute a waiver of the forfeiture, or of the right to annul the contract.” If the defendant demanded and received the assessment in question after the death of the insured, with full knowledge of all the facts respecting the falsity of

1899In the case of Association v. Beck, 77 Ind. 203 , the court say, per Woods, J.: “The logical and necessary deduction from this doctrine is that a distinct act of affirmance by the party entitled to avoid it, made with knowledge of the facts, and especially such acts as the demand and receipt of premiums or assessments, would constitute a waiver of the forfeiture or of the right to annul the contract.” If the defendant demanded and received the assessment in question after the death of the insured, with full knowledge of all the facts ■respecting the falsity of the statement of the insured reli

2022Co. v County of Nassau , 46 NY2d 1028, 1029 ; Ramlochan v Scottsdale Ins.

2022Co. v County of Nassau , 46 NY2d 1028, 1029 ; Ramlochan v Scottsdale Ins.

2019Under the circumstances, the proceeds of that cause of action included the funds recovered in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's SUM claim ( see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell , 81 NY2d at 658 ; Maher v Quality Bus Serv., LLC , 144 AD3d at 991-993 ).

2019Under the circumstances, the proceeds of that cause of action included the funds recovered in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's SUM claim ( see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell , 81 NY2d at 658 ; Maher v Quality Bus Serv., LLC , 144 AD3d at 991-993 ).

2019Under the circumstances, the proceeds of that cause of action included the funds recovered in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's SUM claim ( see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell , 81 NY2d at 658 ; Maher v Quality Bus Serv., LLC , 144 AD3d at 991-993 ).

2019Under the circumstances, the proceeds of that cause of action included the funds recovered in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's SUM claim ( see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell , 81 NY2d at 658 ; Maher v Quality Bus Serv., LLC , 144 AD3d at 991-993 ).

2007Cos. [House], 34 AD3d at 890-891 ) and, accordingly, we affirm Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s request for a permanent stay of arbitration.

2007Cos. [House], 34 AD3d at 890-891 ) and, accordingly, we affirm Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s request for a permanent stay of arbitration.

2005Co., 19 NY2d 159 [1967].) Rather, the court considered whether or not such burden must be met as a condition precedent to arbitration of respondent’s SUM claim.

2004Plaintiffs read this paragraph to provide that the insured has the option to proceed to arbitration on the SUM claim or, as they have done here, to commence litigation.{** 3 Misc 3d at 636 } Although there appears to be no controlling authority interpreting this provision, the court finds persuasive authority to the effect that, when there is a dispute arising under the right of an insured to payment of SUM benefits, or to the amount of those benefits, the insured will always have the right to initiate legal action, or in the alternative, to demand arbitration.

2004Plaintiffs read this paragraph to provide that the insured has the option to proceed to arbitration on the SUM claim or, as they have done here, to commence litigation.{** 3 Misc 3d at 636 } Although there appears to be no controlling authority interpreting this provision, the court finds persuasive authority to the effect that, when there is a dispute arising under the right of an insured to payment of SUM benefits, or to the amount of those benefits, the insured will always have the right to initiate legal action, or in the alternative, to demand arbitration.

2004Co. v Battaglia, 292 AD2d 527 [2002]).

2004Co. v Battaglia, 292 AD2d 527 [2002]).

2004Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to meet several conditions precedent to payment of the SUM claim by declining to provide the documentation and. undergo the medical examination demanded by the defendant (see White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955 [1993]; Matter of Integon Ins.

2004Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to meet several conditions precedent to payment of the SUM claim by declining to provide the documentation and. undergo the medical examination demanded by the defendant (see White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955 [1993]; Matter of Integon Ins.

2002Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002 ; Witterschein v State Farm Ins.

2001Co. v Spagnolo, 221 AD2d 921, 922 ).

2000Co. [Dewyea], 245 AD2d 667, 668 ).

1952Co. v. City of New York, 259 N. Y. 472, 495 , 496 and cases cited therein).

1933In Smith Contracting Co. v. City of New York ( 146 App. Div. 760 ) this court said: “ Reading sections 419 and 149 together the result is that while a head of department may make a contract for a particular job, of which the estimated cost is not more than $1,000, without public letting, the contractor may recover thereon only the sum at which the claim is audited by an auditor of accounts, or, if the contractor is dissatisfied with the audit, then the fair value thereof to be established by the contractor by competent evidence, and the amount which the officer of the city making the contract

1933Wells & Newton Co. v. Craig, 232 N. Y. 125 ), and in this respect its officers and agefits are performing State as distinguished from city functions (Schieffelin v. Komfort, 212 N. Y. 520 ), yet the Board expends the city’s money raised by taxation, and within certain limitations its expenditures may be limited, investigated and controlled by the city authorities.

1933Wells & Newton Co. v. Craig, 232 N. Y. 125 ), and in this respect its officers and agefits are performing State as distinguished from city functions (Schieffelin v. Komfort, 212 N. Y. 520 ), yet the Board expends the city’s money raised by taxation, and within certain limitations its expenditures may be limited, investigated and controlled by the city authorities.

1933In Smith Contracting Co. v. City of New York ( 146 App. Div. 760 ) this court said: “ Reading sections 419 and 149 together the result is that while a head of department may make a contract for a particular job, of which the estimated cost is not more than $1,000, without public letting, the contractor may recover thereon only the sum at which the claim is audited by an auditor of accounts, or, if the contractor is dissatisfied with the audit, then the fair value thereof to be established by the contractor by competent evidence, and the amount which the officer of the city making the contract

1917This suggestion, however, was subsequently overruled in Cutter v. City of New York, 92 N. Y. 166 , where interest was demanded at the time and the principal was received under protest and with a saving of all the claimant’s rights.

1917Jacot v. Emmett, 11 Paige, 142, 146 ; Hamilton v. Van Rensselaer, 43 N. Y. 244, 246 .