Pillig v. Strange
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hennessy v. G.S. Mink Steamer & T. Claxton Hose Co. No. 2, Auxiliary Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Hahn v. Garrett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Krol v. Potter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Krol v. Potter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Volunteer & Exempt Firemen's Ass'n v. Local 1588 of the Professional Firefighters Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Town of Mamaroneck Professional Firefighters Ass'n, Local 898 v. Volunteer & Exempt Firemen's Benevolent Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys collected by the defendant Pelham Fireman’s Association pursuant to Insurance Law §§ 9104 and 9105, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 11, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Insurance Law §§ 9104 and 9105 provide that foreign and alien fire insurance companies and mutual fire insurance companies must pay a 2% tax on the amount of all premiums for insurance against loss or damage by fire, and that the money generated by the tax "shall * * * [be] distribute^] * * * to the fire companies constituting the fire department if such fire department is constituted of more than one fire company”. These sections apply to volunteer and paid firefighters alike (see, Renn v Kimbark, 51 NY2d 189; Van Orman v Slade, 126
In the absence of any material issues of fact, it was proper for the court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declaring the entitlement of the plaintiffs, who are paid firefighters, to a pro rata share of the money generated by Insurance Law §§ 9104 and 9105 (see, Renn v Kimbark, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; City of Poughkeepsie v Poughkeepsie Associated Fire Dept., supra).
The defendants’ remaining contentions lack merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.