Associates Discount Corp. v. Fulton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Associates Discount Corp. v. Fulton

67 A.D.2d 854, 413 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10571

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 854 (Associates Discount Corp. v. Fulton) 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

Associates Discount Corp. v. Fulton, 67 A.D.2d 854, 413 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1978, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and the motion is denied. Plaintiff, holder of a lien on a tractor trailer owned by Edward Rice, sues on an insurance contract. Rice was a leased operator for Navajo Freight Lines who could get insurance for its leased operators at a lower premium than the individual himself. Plaintiff was the named loss payee and lienholder under such a policy issued by underwriters at Lloyd’s, represented by defendant. Rice was insured from December 13, 1976, to March 1, 1977, and was issued a renewal certificate for the period March 1, 1977, to March 1, 1978. Mr. Rice’s tractor trailer was stolen on March 30, 1977. Defendant claims that the policy was canceled on March 21, 1977, by Mr. Rice. Special Term, in granting plaintiffs motion, decided that defendant had not laid bare his proof in evidentiary form: But, in searching the record we find a document dated March 21, 1977, unexplained by Mr. Rice, that establishes a prima facie defense of cancellation by the insured and therefore triable issues. If Mr. Rice, indeed, canceled coverage by the defendant, no notice to plaintiff as lienor was required. Only if Lloyd’s underwriters canceled would 10 days’ notice have been required. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1978, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and the motion is denied. Plaintiff, holder of a lien on a tractor trailer owned by Edward Rice, sues on an insurance contract. Rice was a leased operator for Navajo Freight Lines who could get insurance for its leased operators at a lower premium than the individual himself. Plaintiff was the named loss payee and lienholder under such a policy issued by underwriters at Lloyd’s, represented by defendant. Rice was insured from December 13, 1976, to March 1, 1977, and was issued a renewal certificate for the period March 1, 1977, to March 1, 1978. Mr. Rice’s tractor trailer was stolen on March 30, 1977. Defendant claims that the policy was canceled on March 21, 1977, by Mr. Rice. Special Term, in granting plaintiffs motion, decided that defendant had not laid bare his proof in evidentiary form: But, in searching the record we find a document dated March 21, 1977, unexplained by Mr. Rice, that establishes a prima facie defense of cancellation by the insured and therefore triable issues. If Mr. Rice, indeed, canceled coverage by the defendant, no notice to plaintiff as lienor was required. Only if Lloyd’s underwriters canceled would 10 days’ notice have been required. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 854, 413 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associates-discount-corp-v-fulton-nyappdiv-1979.