Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appelbaum v. Star Fire Insurance of Louisville
100 N.Y.S. 747
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1906-10-19
- Topic
- general
Ingraham, J.: This action was commenced against.a foreign insurance company to recover for a loss covered by a policy of insurance. Process was served upon the Superintendent of Insurance at Albany on the 1st day of June, 1906, and service of process was duly admitted by him under section 30 of the Insurance Law (Laws of 1892, chap. 690). It appears that the Superintendent of Insurance sent the summons and complaint served on him to the defendant at its home office, which was duly received, but mislaid, and in consequence of that mistake appearance was not entered in time. The defendant claims that the service was irregular because it was not made personally upon •the Superintendent of Insurance, but the Superintendent admitted on behalf of the defendant due service of the summons and complaint, and we think there can be no question but that'the service *118was regular. The motion to set 'aside the judgment on account of irregular service should not have been granted. .
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Appelbaum v. Star Fire Insurance of Louisville. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
This action was commenced against.a foreign insurance company to recover for a loss covered by a policy of insurance. Process was served upon the Superintendent of Insurance at Albany on the 1st day of June, 1906, and service of process was duly admitted by him under section 30 of the Insurance Law (Laws of 1892, chap. 690). It appears that the Superintendent of Insurance sent the summons and complaint served on him to the defendant at its home office, which was duly received, but mislaid, and in consequence of that mistake appearance was not entered in time. The defendant claims that the service was irregular because it was not made personally upon •the Superintendent of Insurance, but the Superintendent admitted on behalf of the defendant due service of the summons and complaint, and we think there can be no question but that'the service
It follows that the order appealed from opening the default and allowing the defendant to come in and defend the action should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
O’Bbien, P. J., Clabke, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Order filed.