Breen v. Cunard Lines Steamship Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breen v. Cunard Lines Steamship Co.

41 A.D.2d 726, 341 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4887

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 726 (Breen v. Cunard Lines Steamship Co.) 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

Breen v. Cunard Lines Steamship Co., 41 A.D.2d 726, 341 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 22, 1972, denying motion by third-party defendant, insurer Liberty Mutual, for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, and the complaint in Action No. 2 dismissed. Appellant shall recover of respondent Cunard $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The issue is solely one in respect of the unambiguous language of the policy, and a person, other than the named insured is covered only if he is a lessee or borrower of an automobile or an employee of the named insured, or of such lessee or borrower. And there is nothing on this submission indicating that Cunard was a lessee, borrower or employee of the insured or of a lessee or borrower. Accordingly, we perceive [727]*727no question of fact, and we grant the motion. Concur — McGivem, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Tilzer, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 22, 1972, denying motion by third-party defendant, insurer Liberty Mutual, for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, and the complaint in Action No. 2 dismissed. Appellant shall recover of respondent Cunard $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The issue is solely one in respect of the unambiguous language of the policy, and a person, other than the named insured is covered only if he is a lessee or borrower of an automobile or an employee of the named insured, or of such lessee or borrower. And there is nothing on this submission indicating that Cunard was a lessee, borrower or employee of the insured or of a lessee or borrower. Accordingly, we perceive [727]*727no question of fact, and we grant the motion. Concur — McGivem, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 726, 341 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breen-v-cunard-lines-steamship-co-nyappdiv-1973.