Butternut Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butternut Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

67 A.D.2d 672, 412 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 672 (Butternut Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity 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

Butternut Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 67 A.D.2d 672, 412 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover under two fire insurance policies, one issued by each of the defendants, the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 16, 1978, which denied defendant Traveler’s motion and defendant New Hampshire’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion and cross motion for summary judgment granted. In its proof of claim, plaintiff set forth a certain sum as the amount claimed under the defendants’ fire insurance policies. Said amount has already been paid. Therefore, since no bona fide factual issue exists, the defendants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. We note that the respondent filed no brief. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover under two fire insurance policies, one issued by each of the defendants, the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 16, 1978, which denied defendant Traveler’s motion and defendant New Hampshire’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion and cross motion for summary judgment granted. In its proof of claim, plaintiff set forth a certain sum as the amount claimed under the defendants’ fire insurance policies. Said amount has already been paid. Therefore, since no bona fide factual issue exists, the defendants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. We note that the respondent filed no brief. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 672, 412 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butternut-enterprises-inc-v-travelers-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1979.