Bedwil Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlas Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bedwil Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlas Assurance Co.

18 A.D.2d 1004, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1004 (Bedwil Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlas 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

Bedwil Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlas Assurance Co., 18 A.D.2d 1004, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon insurance policies issued by the defendant insurance companies, to recover for injury to property allegedly caused by windstorm, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 28, 1961 after trial on a jury’s verdict in favor of said defendants. With respect to the defendant Weisman the action had been discontinued by a pretrial stipulation. Judgment affirmed, with costs. On the record presented, we find no error in the court’s charge. Nor do we find such prejudicial conduct on the part of defendants’ trial counsel as to require a new trial in the interests of justice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Chidst, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon insurance policies issued by the defendant insurance companies, to recover for injury to property allegedly caused by windstorm, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 28, 1961 after trial on a jury’s verdict in favor of said defendants. With respect to the defendant Weisman the action had been discontinued by a pretrial stipulation. Judgment affirmed, with costs. On the record presented, we find no error in the court’s charge. Nor do we find such prejudicial conduct on the part of defendants’ trial counsel as to require a new trial in the interests of justice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Chidst, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1004, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedwil-enterprises-inc-v-atlas-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1963.