Balen Developing Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balen Developing Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.

54 A.D.2d 953, 388 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14855

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 953 (Balen Developing Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.) 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

Balen Developing Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 54 A.D.2d 953, 388 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on various policies of fire insurance, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 21, 1975, which is in favor of defendants, after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Simon Leibowitz at Trial Term. In addition, this court notes that the evidence supports a finding that the hazard was increased by a means within the knowledge of the insured. Moreover, at the trial, plaintiff proceeded on the theory that the buildings in question were occupied and not abandoned. It may not at this time contend that the buildings were in part abandoned, to the knowledge of the defendants. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on various policies of fire insurance, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 21, 1975, which is in favor of defendants, after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Simon Leibowitz at Trial Term. In addition, this court notes that the evidence supports a finding that the hazard was increased by a means within the knowledge of the insured. Moreover, at the trial, plaintiff proceeded on the theory that the buildings in question were occupied and not abandoned. It may not at this time contend that the buildings were in part abandoned, to the knowledge of the defendants. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 953, 388 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balen-developing-corp-v-american-home-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1976.