Arbital v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arbital v. Allstate Insurance

282 A.D.2d 560, 723 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 560 (Arbital v. Allstate 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

Arbital v. Allstate Insurance, 282 A.D.2d 560, 723 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered March 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $81,000.

[561]*561Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and a new trial is granted.

The cumulative effect of the trial errors in this case, including the improper restriction of cross-examination, deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, Shenorock Shore Club v Rollins Agency, 270 AD2d 330; Hill v Arnold, 226 AD2d 232).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered March 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $81,000.

[561]*561Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and a new trial is granted.

The cumulative effect of the trial errors in this case, including the improper restriction of cross-examination, deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, Shenorock Shore Club v Rollins Agency, 270 AD2d 330; Hill v Arnold, 226 AD2d 232).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 560, 723 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbital-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack