3910 Super K, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

3910 Super K, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance

219 A.D.2d 588, 631 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9198

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 588 (3910 Super K, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

3910 Super K, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, 219 A.D.2d 588, 631 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 12, 1994, which denied their motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendants.

[589]*589Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence, either separately or cumulatively, was of such a nature that, if introduced at trial, probably would have resulted in a different verdict (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr., 131 AD2d 799). Therefore, their motion was properly denied. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 12, 1994, which denied their motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendants.

[589]*589Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence, either separately or cumulatively, was of such a nature that, if introduced at trial, probably would have resulted in a different verdict (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr., 131 AD2d 799). Therefore, their motion was properly denied. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 588, 631 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3910-super-k-inc-v-pennsylvania-lumbermens-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack