Berman v. Federal Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Federal Insurance

110 A.D.2d 803, 488 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48707

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 803 (Berman v. Federal 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 803, 488 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-federal-insurance-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack