Berman v. Federal Insurance

110 A.D.2d 803, 488 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48707
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 1985·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

On the motion for partial summary judgment, it was incumbent upon defendants to lay bare their proof and thereby show the existence of triable issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Defendants have wholly failed to contradict the elements of plaintiffs’ claim of loss under the valued jewelry policy. The mere unsubstantiated allegations of fraud by defense counsel are insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion (see, Spaulding v Benenati, 57 NY2d 418; Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255). Moreover, we find that, since the police reports and other evidence in the case were equally available to all the parties, Special Term properly rejected defendants’ argument that the salient facts were solely within plaintiffs’ knowledge. Accordingly, we affirm. Mollen, P. J., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Berman v. Federal Insurance, 110 A.D.2d 803, 488 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 803 (Berman v. Federal Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Avdeychik v. Allstate Insurance
303 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Affatato v. Standard Fire Insurance
277 A.D.2d 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Campagno v. Ipco Corp.
138 Misc. 2d 44 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)