Berkowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

180 Misc. 757, 43 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 16, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 Misc. 757 (Berkowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berkowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 180 Misc. 757, 43 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Per Curiam.

The prior decision on appeal did not rule that plaintiff’s proof of continuance of total and permanent disability was sufficient as matter of law. The proof given to the company should be submitted to the jury with proper instructions to determine as a fact whether it was such reasonable evidence as plaintiff could command at the time [760]*760to give assurance that tlie total and permanent disability which the defendant, had previously recognized, and upon which it had paid, continued during the period for which suit was brought. (Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 266 N. Y., 345.) It was prejudicial error to refuse to charge that portion of defendant’s request that plaintiff had the burden of furnishing due proof of continuance of total and permanent disability.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hammer, and Hecht, JJ., concur; Shientag, J., dissents.

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

Memorandum Per Curiam.

The prior decision on appeal did not rule that plaintiff’s proof of continuance of total and permanent disability was sufficient as matter of law. The proof given to the company should be submitted to the jury with proper instructions to determine as a fact whether it was such reasonable evidence as plaintiff could command at the time [760]*760to give assurance that tlie total and permanent disability which the defendant, had previously recognized, and upon which it had paid, continued during the period for which suit was brought. (Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 266 N. Y., 345.) It was prejudicial error to refuse to charge that portion of defendant’s request that plaintiff had the burden of furnishing due proof of continuance of total and permanent disability.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hammer, and Hecht, JJ., concur; Shientag, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Misc. 757, 43 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-nyappterm-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack