Pilkenton v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
Annotate this CaseReleased on December 27, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
1236 CA 13-00813
[*1]JASON T. PILKENTON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v
NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Dennis S. Cohen, A.J.), entered April 3, 2013. The order granted the petition seeking, inter alia, to direct respondent to submit to the appraisal process set forth in its policy of insurance.
RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (MARCO CERCONE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JASON T. PILKENTON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT PRO SE.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is denied.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order that granted the petition seeking, inter alia, to direct respondent to submit to the appraisal process set forth in its policy of insurance. Assuming without deciding that the petition was timely filed and procedurally proper, we agree with respondent that the insurance coverage dispute precludes the application of the appraisal process set forth in the policy (see Kawa v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 174 Misc 2d 407, 408-409; see generally Amerex Group, Inc. v Lexington Ins. Co., 678 F3d 193, 204 [2d Cir]). Insurance Law § 3408 (c) provides for an appraisal in the event of a covered loss, and here there is a pending declaratory judgment action in which the parties dispute whether this is a covered loss.
Entered: December 27, 2013
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
