appraisal clause in New York

1958Co., 164 N. Y. 381 .) However, it has also been held that where the insured or other claimant proceeds diligently and in good faith but the insurance company fails or refuses so„ to do, so as to defeat the real object of the appraisal clause, then the insured or other claimant is absolved from compliance with said condition precedent and he may then proceed with his action on the policy.

1920Silver v. Western Assurance Co., 164 N. Y. 381 ; Hamilton v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins.

1910Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19 ; Wurster v. Armfield, 175 id. 256.

1910Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19 ; Wurster v. Armfield, 175 id. 256.

1997Co. ( 112 Misc 656, 657 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 1920], affd 196 App Div 921 ), the appraisal clause only applies to a case with a disagreement " 'as to the amount of loss or damage’ ”, and not where the insurer denies liability.

1992In reaching this conclusion it should be pointed out that the purpose of the appraisal rule is to permit the free and liberal exchange of appraisals for the initial time period following the filing of the claim or within the extended time period, but to impose rigid standards thereafter (see, Laken Realty Corp. v State of New York, 37 AD2d 885 ).

1992Furthermore, preclusion of an appraisal does not foreclose litigation of the valuation issue (see, e.g., Joremi Enters. v Abraitys, 61 AD2d 834 ; Fiesinger v State of New York, 88 Misc 2d 557, 560, n 1 ).

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1982In Plaza Hotel Assoc, v Wellington Assoc. ( 55 Misc 2d 483 , affd 28 AD2d 1209 , affd 22 NY2d 846 ), where the land was subject to a 20-year lease under which the premises had to be used as a hotel, the existence of the lease had to be considered because the premises were not used for the highest and best use, a commercial office building.

1982In Plaza Hotel Assoc, v Wellington Assoc. ( 55 Misc 2d 483 , affd 28 AD2d 1209 , affd 22 NY2d 846 ), where the land was subject to a 20-year lease under which the premises had to be used as a hotel, the existence of the lease had to be considered because the premises were not used for the highest and best use, a commercial office building.

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1982In 185 Lexington Holding Corp. v Holman ( 19 Misc 2d 521 , affd 10 AD2d 569 , affd 8 NY2d 965 ), where the appraisal clause referred to the value of the land only, without improvements, the court’s interpretation of the lease was that the parties intended that the valuation of the land was to be made without regard to encumbrances such as leases.

1980An examination of the record clearly establishes that the exhibits were allowed into evidence solely for the purpose of rebutting claimant’s contention that the property had an industrial highest and best use and the exhibits were not utilized to evaluate claimant’s land (cf. Hewitt v State of New York, 54 AD2d 812 ).

1977In Farrington v State of New York ( 33 AD2d 731 ), although denying the claimant the right of submitting a new appraisal, the court permitted him to offer the testimony of a second appraiser, providing that his testimony was "limited to values which do not go beyond those in the initial appraisal.” In the instant case, as has been pointed out heretofore, the testimony of De Stefanis which the municipality sought to present was not related to its affirmative proof as to value, as was that of the claimant’s second appraiser in Farrington which was allowed even though a report had not been filed

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976Also, if it is found the totality of evidence is legally insufficient to determine value and damages, the trial court (see, e.g., Art-Craft Realty Corp. v State of New York, 72 Misc 2d 452, 453 ) or the appellate courts (see, e.g., Getty Oil Co. v State of New York, 33 AD2d 705, 706, 707 ) have the power to provide for the production of additional evidence.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1976(See Spyros v State of New York, 25 AD2d 696 ; Matter of City of New York [Maxwell], 15 AD2d 153, 161 , affd 12 NY2d 1086 , 16 NY2d 497 , amd 16 NY2d 828 ; Morton v State of New York, 9 Misc 2d 674, 677 , affd 8 AD2d 49 .) Through proper and effective cross-examination, a party in default of the appraisal rule may still be able to obtain more than the State’s estimate of damages.

1960Co.], 309 N. Y. 60 ; see, also, Matter of Ross v. Hardware Mut.

1958S. 577, affd. 138 N. Y. 609 .) Although the complaint properly alleges that the plaintiffs have performed all of the conditions of the subject indorsement except insofar as the same have been waived, excused or prevented from performance by the defendant, yet said allegations are denied in the answer, and upon a consideration of all of the papers submitted hereon, this count is of the opinion that the question of whether or not, under all the existing and surrounding circumstances, the defendant by neglecting or refusing, for a period of 24 days, to select and appoint an appraiser failed to co

1929Co., 74 Wis. 67 .) An appraisal clause does not permit appraisers to determine whether a loss was in fact total, as an appraisal is to determine the amount of damage only.