Bergen Street Properties Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bergen Street Properties Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

82 A.D.2d 817, 439 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14484

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1981·Published

Opinion

In an action on a fire insurance policy, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [818] Kings County (Beckinella, J.), entered August 12, 1980, which is in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $72,000, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In light of plaintiff’s attorney’s proclivity for making prejudicial comments, it was error to deny defendant’s request to record plaintiff’s closing statement to the jury (see Roman v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Center, 51 AD2d 529, 530; Croix v New York City Tr. Auth., 28 AD2d 691). It was also error for the court to dismiss the affirmative defense of fraud, as the evidence established a question of fact for the jury (see Saks & Co. v Continental Ins. Co., 23 NY2d 161). Hopkins, J.P.„ Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ.,.concur.

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

In an action on a fire insurance policy, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [818] Kings County (Beckinella, J.), entered August 12, 1980, which is in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $72,000, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In light of plaintiff’s attorney’s proclivity for making prejudicial comments, it was error to deny defendant’s request to record plaintiff’s closing statement to the jury (see Roman v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Center, 51 AD2d 529, 530; Croix v New York City Tr. Auth., 28 AD2d 691). It was also error for the court to dismiss the affirmative defense of fraud, as the evidence established a question of fact for the jury (see Saks & Co. v Continental Ins. Co., 23 NY2d 161). Hopkins, J.P.„ Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ.,.concur.

Bergen Street Properties Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n, 82 A.D.2d 817, 439 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

82 A.D.2d 817 (Bergen Street Properties Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related