Cougar Sport, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cougar Sport, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance

288 A.D.2d 85, 733 N.Y.S.2d 151, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10948

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 85 (Cougar Sport, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance) 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

Cougar Sport, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance, 288 A.D.2d 85, 733 N.Y.S.2d 151, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered July 28, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff insured had entrusted its merchandise to Yankee Clipper Warehousing, Inc., and thus, that the loss of plaintiffs merchandise due to Yankee’s theft or dishonesty came within the exclusion to the coverage afforded by plaintiffs insurance policy with defendant for loss attributable to the dishonest or criminal act of a person to whom the insured has entrusted its goods (see, Abrams v Great Am. Ins. Co., 269 NY 90). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, it is clear as a matter of law that Yankee cannot be considered a “carrier for hire,” and, accordingly, that the loss occasioned by Yankee’s conduct does not fall within the exception to the exclusion from coverage whose applicability has been established by defendant.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered July 28, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff insured had entrusted its merchandise to Yankee Clipper Warehousing, Inc., and thus, that the loss of plaintiffs merchandise due to Yankee’s theft or dishonesty came within the exclusion to the coverage afforded by plaintiffs insurance policy with defendant for loss attributable to the dishonest or criminal act of a person to whom the insured has entrusted its goods (see, Abrams v Great Am. Ins. Co., 269 NY 90). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, it is clear as a matter of law that Yankee cannot be considered a “carrier for hire,” and, accordingly, that the loss occasioned by Yankee’s conduct does not fall within the exception to the exclusion from coverage whose applicability has been established by defendant.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 85, 733 N.Y.S.2d 151, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cougar-sport-inc-v-hartford-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack