Berenson v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berenson v. Hartford Fire Insurance

13 A.D.2d 477, 212 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 477 (Berenson v. Hartford Fire 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

Berenson v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 13 A.D.2d 477, 212 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order entered on March 21, 1960 denying partial summary judgment and directing a separate and prior trial on a limited issue unanimously modified on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, so as to direct a separate and prior trial on all the issues of law and fact raised by the first defense of the answer, and otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Special Term’s limitation of the issue to be preliminarily tried was too narrow. It does not necessarily follow that the defendant-respondent would be entitled to judgment if it be proven merely that the plaintiff’s attorneys did not communicate with the defendant’s attorneys regarding the examination of the insured. The first defense is much broader and the separate trial should include all the issues of law and fact raised by such affirmative defense. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

— Order entered on March 21, 1960 denying partial summary judgment and directing a separate and prior trial on a limited issue unanimously modified on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, so as to direct a separate and prior trial on all the issues of law and fact raised by the first defense of the answer, and otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Special Term’s limitation of the issue to be preliminarily tried was too narrow. It does not necessarily follow that the defendant-respondent would be entitled to judgment if it be proven merely that the plaintiff’s attorneys did not communicate with the defendant’s attorneys regarding the examination of the insured. The first defense is much broader and the separate trial should include all the issues of law and fact raised by such affirmative defense. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 477, 212 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berenson-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1961.