Blank v. Insurance Co. of North America

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Blank v. Insurance Co. of North America

126 Misc. 2d 977, 487 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3738

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 126 Misc. 2d 977 (Blank v. Insurance Co. of North America) 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

Blank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 126 Misc. 2d 977, 487 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff brings this suit to recover accident benefits allegedly due under a group policy of insurance. It was undisputed that plaintiff suffered a stroke while undergoing a cardiac catheterization, recommended after he had experienced chest pains. It is our opinion that plaintiff adduced ample evidence to establish that the stroke was the result of an accident (see, Miller v Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675) and that the procedure was a cause of the stroke. Moreover, given the testimony of plaintiff’s medical expert that the stroke was caused by a chipping off of part of plaintiff’s artery during the procedure as well as the failure of defendant to offer any evidence in rebuttal, there is no basis to disturb the finding of the jury that this was the sole producing cause of the stroke.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff brings this suit to recover accident benefits allegedly due under a group policy of insurance. It was undisputed that plaintiff suffered a stroke while undergoing a cardiac catheterization, recommended after he had experienced chest pains. It is our opinion that plaintiff adduced ample evidence to establish that the stroke was the result of an accident (see, Miller v Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675) and that the procedure was a cause of the stroke. Moreover, given the testimony of plaintiff’s medical expert that the stroke was caused by a chipping off of part of plaintiff’s artery during the procedure as well as the failure of defendant to offer any evidence in rebuttal, there is no basis to disturb the finding of the jury that this was the sole producing cause of the stroke.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 2d 977, 487 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blank-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyappterm-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack