Continental Cameras Co. v. Foa & Son Corp.

Second Circuit

Continental Cameras Co. v. Foa & Son Corp.

831 F.2d 45

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1987

DocketNo. 213, Docket No. 87-7466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 831 F.2d 45 (Continental Cameras Co. v. Foa & Son Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Continental Cameras Co. v. Foa & Son Corp., 831 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Continental Cameras Co., Inc. (“Continental”), and Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. [46]*46Sand, Judge, dismissing for lack of admiralty jurisdiction their complaint against Continental’s insurance broker for failing to forward premiums to Continental's insurance company in time to avoid cancellation of Continental’s policy and failing to inform Continental that its policy had been canceled. We affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Sand, published at 658 F.Supp. 287 (1987). See generally Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 1405, 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Continental Cameras Co., Inc. (“Continental”), and Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. [46]*46Sand, Judge, dismissing for lack of admiralty jurisdiction their complaint against Continental’s insurance broker for failing to forward premiums to Continental's insurance company in time to avoid cancellation of Continental’s policy and failing to inform Continental that its policy had been canceled. We affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Sand, published at 658 F.Supp. 287 (1987). See generally Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 1405, 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 F.2d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-cameras-co-v-foa-son-corp-ca2-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack