Schaal v. CGU Ins.

Decision Date14 June 2012
Citation948 N.Y.S.2d 128,96 A.D.3d 1182,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04800
PartiesRandy J. SCHAAL, as Chapter 7 Trustee of Judith Ann Mason–Martino, Also known as Judith Mason, et al., Appellants, v. CGU INSURANCE, Individually and as Successor in Interest to General Accident Insurance Company of America, et al., Respondents. Judith Ann Mason–Martino, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Judith Ann Mason–Martino, Glen Allen, appellant pro se.

Richard D. Plochocki, Syracuse, for respondents.

Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, SPAIN, KAVANAGH and McCARTHY, JJ.

KAVANAGH, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Tait, J.), entered May 17, 2010 in Broome County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Judith Ann Mason–Martino is the sole shareholder of plaintiff Express Wire Products, Inc., which owned a building located in the Village of Endicott, Broome County. Her husband, Bruce Mason, procured a comprehensive insurance policy that covered the building from General Accident Insurance Company of America, the predecessor in interest to defendant CGU Insurance. In 1998, Express Wire Products ceased operations and its assets, including the building, were transferred to plaintiff Champnion, Inc., which was also wholly owned by Mason–Martino. In January 1999, the building was destroyed by a fire,1 AND CGU SUBSEQUently REjected a loss claim filed by mason–marTino.

Express Wire, Champnion and plaintiff Randy J. Schaal, as the chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Mason–Martino, commenced this action against defendants for breach of contract and bad faith. Defendants answered and, in addition to asserting various affirmative defenses, subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed.

Mason–Martino has filed a brief on this appeal, on behalf of herself as a pro se Plaintiff.” No other plaintiff has filed a brief or otherwise appeared since the notice of appeal was filed in connection with Supreme Court's order dismissing the complaint. As for Mason–Martino, defendants assert that she is not a party in this action and her appeal of Supreme Court's decision must be dismissed. We agree. Any claim against defendants in connection with these premises belongs to the estate unless the trustee in bankruptcy abandoned it ( see Webber v. Scarano–Osika, 94 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 943 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2012];Culver v. Parsons, 7 A.D.3d 931, 932, 777 N.Y.S.2d 536 [2004];Mehlenbacher v. Swartout, 289 A.D.2d 651, 652, 734 N.Y.S.2d 290 [2001];Stich v. Oakdale Dental Ctr., 157 A.D.2d 1011, 1011, 550 N.Y.S.2d 496 [1990] ). While Mason–Martino claims that the trustee “gave up his rights on behalf of [her] debtors,” there is no evidence in the record that the trustee abandoned this claim ( see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. Marine Midland Bank–N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 191, 196, 513 N.Y.S.2d 91, 505 N.E.2d 601 [1987];Mizrahi v. Flaum, 69 A.D.3d 589, 590, 893 N.Y.S.2d 151 [2010];Mehlenbacher v. Swartout, 289 A.D.2d at 652, 734 N.Y.S.2d 290;see also11 USC § 554), or that the claim has been addressed in the bankruptcy proceeding ( see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. Marine Midland Bank–N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d at 196, 513 N.Y.S.2d 91, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Leszczynski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 14, 2012
  • Ctr. for Judicial Accountability, Inc. v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 2018
    ...and Mulvey, JJ., concur.1 We note that no appeal has been asserted on behalf of the CJA by an attorney (see Schaal v. CGU Ins., 96 A.D.3d 1182, 1183 n. 2, 948 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2012] ).2 The powers and duties of both the 2010 Commission on Judicial Compensation and the 2015 Commission regarding......
  • Ruback's Grove Campers Ass'n, Inc. v. Moore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 14, 2012
    ...A.D.2d 787, 788, 629 N.Y.S.2d 492 [1995] ). Whether or not the language is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide ( see [96 A.D.3d 1182]W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d at 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639;Matter of Moncure v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conse......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT