Budco Associates, Inc. v. Royal Exchange Assurance of America

53 A.D.2d 568, 384 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13191
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 568 (Budco Associates, Inc. v. Royal Exchange Assurance of America) 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
Budco Associates, Inc. v. Royal Exchange Assurance of America, 53 A.D.2d 568, 384 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Judgment in plaintiffs favor entered in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, on September 5, 1975, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. Issues of credibility in the conflicting testimony between plaintiffs general manager and the truckman delivering parts for a roller coaster to the amusement park, as to whether plaintiff accepted delivery of the two cases in plaintiffs parking lot were properly given to the jury. In addition, the court correctly submitted to the jury the question whether said goods were "in transit” or had been delivered when the loss through fire occurred, inasmuch as the insurance policy which covered the freight provided that "insurance attaches from the time the goods leave * * * the insurance continues whilst the goods are in transit * * * until delivered to the final * * * destination named in the policy”. Implicit in the submission was the question whether plaintiff exercised dominion over the goods so that it might be said delivery had occurred. The trial court was correct in refusing to hold as a matter of law that delivery was completed when the truckman left the freight on a trailer in the parking lot, in light of evidence showing that on six previous occasions similar freight had been delivered an additional distance, to the amusement area where a roller coaster for which the parts were intended was being erected. (See Loveless Mfg. Co. v Roadway Exp., 104 F Supp 809, 812; Pulitzer Creations v Phoenix Ins. Co., 47 Misc 2d 801, affd 52 Misc 2d 934.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Lane, JJ.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 568, 384 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budco-associates-inc-v-royal-exchange-assurance-of-america-nyappdiv-1976.