Amherst & Clarence Insurance v. Cazenovia Tavern, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (Okla. 1990)
- Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Yonkers Contracting Co. v. General Star National Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
- Dynamic Event Group, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Technology Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Technology Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Gorski v. Phalen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Dumond v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Stulz v. 305 Riverside Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Tri-State Consumer, Inc. v. Mintz & Gold, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Pohlman v. American Alliance Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- New York Mutual Underwriters v. Burdick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- State Automobile Insurance v. Young Men's Republican Club of Allegheny County, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
- Lotz v. Lotz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court with direction to dismiss the action as moot.
This action is for a declaration as to the obligation of the insurer to defend appellant in an underlying tort action. Nothing in the submissions of the parties suggests that the intervening settlement of the tort action has not rendered the issues in the declaratory judgment action moot.
Any agreement or understanding the parties may have reached not to disclose to our court the fact or circumstances of such settlement, relating as the settlement does to the continuing viability of the appeal, will be disregarded. The attorneys for litigants in our court have an obligation to keep the court informed of all such matters pertinent to the disposition of a pending appeal and cannot, by agreement between them, foreclose its disposition on the ground of mootness or otherwise predetermine the scope of our review.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, without costs, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Madison County, with directions to dismiss the action as moot in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.