Butkevicus v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butkevicus v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston

228 A.D. 501, 240 N.Y.S. 358, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12203

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D. 501 (Butkevicus v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston) 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

Butkevicus v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston, 228 A.D. 501, 240 N.Y.S. 358, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence clearly established a breach of a condition in the policy which rendered it void in the event that the insured, within two years of the date of its issue, had attended a hospital, or had treatment by a physician for “ any serious disease, complaint or operation.” Concededly, the insured, within the two years’ period, was in a hospital for eighty-five days, during which time he had constant treatment for gonorrheal rheumatism. In our view the evidence was of such character as to lead to but one conclusion, namely, that the insured had a “ serious disease ” within the meaning of the policy provisions.

It follows that the determination of the Appellate Term and judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts.

Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and O’Malley, JJ.

Determination appealed from and judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence clearly established a breach of a condition in the policy which rendered it void in the event that the insured, within two years of the date of its issue, had attended a hospital, or had treatment by a physician for “ any serious disease, complaint or operation.” Concededly, the insured, within the two years’ period, was in a hospital for eighty-five days, during which time he had constant treatment for gonorrheal rheumatism. In our view the evidence was of such character as to lead to but one conclusion, namely, that the insured had a “ serious disease ” within the meaning of the policy provisions.

It follows that the determination of the Appellate Term and judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts.

Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and O’Malley, JJ.

Determination appealed from and judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 501, 240 N.Y.S. 358, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butkevicus-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-co-of-boston-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack