776 South Orange Avenue, Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

776 South Orange Avenue, Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance

42 A.D.2d 521

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

DecidedJune 7, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 521 (776 South Orange Avenue, Inc. v. Phoenix 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

776 South Orange Avenue, Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance, 42 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 3, 1972, dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to reinstate the complaint as to defendant Rudges & Company only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In our view the evidence established a prima facie case against the insurance broker, defendant-respondent Rudges & Company. Plaintiff-appellant has shown sufficient facts to indicate a course of conduct by Rudges & Company that lulled appellant into a false sense of security, caused appellant to continue its renovations and improvements of the insured premises, all leading to the inaugural opening of its restaurant. (Cf. Joseph, Inc. v. Alberti, Ca/rleton <& Co., 255 App. Div. 115, affd. 251 N. Y. 580; MacDonald v. Carpenter & Pelton, 31 A D 2d 952.) Appellant is entitled to a determination on the merits of its claim that Rudges & Company continuously misrepresented the status of appellant’s fire insurance coverage, causing appellant to act to its detriment, not only with respect to the physical premises, but also with respect to seeking insurance coverage elsewhere. (See Joseph, Inc. v. Alberti, Ca/rleton & Go., Inc., supra.) In holding that a prima facie case had been made out, we neither indicate nor express any opinion whatsoever on the ultimate disposition of the case on the merits. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 3, 1972, dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to reinstate the complaint as to defendant Rudges & Company only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In our view the evidence established a prima facie case against the insurance broker, defendant-respondent Rudges & Company. Plaintiff-appellant has shown sufficient facts to indicate a course of conduct by Rudges & Company that lulled appellant into a false sense of security, caused appellant to continue its renovations and improvements of the insured premises, all leading to the inaugural opening of its restaurant. (Cf. Joseph, Inc. v. Alberti, Ca/rleton <& Co., 255 App. Div. 115, affd. 251 N. Y. 580; MacDonald v. Carpenter & Pelton, 31 A D 2d 952.) Appellant is entitled to a determination on the merits of its claim that Rudges & Company continuously misrepresented the status of appellant’s fire insurance coverage, causing appellant to act to its detriment, not only with respect to the physical premises, but also with respect to seeking insurance coverage elsewhere. (See Joseph, Inc. v. Alberti, Ca/rleton & Go., Inc., supra.) In holding that a prima facie case had been made out, we neither indicate nor express any opinion whatsoever on the ultimate disposition of the case on the merits. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/776-south-orange-avenue-inc-v-phoenix-insurance-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack