DeVanzo v. Newark Insurance

337 N.E.2d 131, 37 N.Y.2d 733, 374 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2102
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 26, 1975·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion by Mr. Justice James D. Hopkins at the Appellate Division. Question certified answered in the affirmative. Of course, upon a trial and if within the pleadings, defendant insurer is free to establish, if it can, that the policy was not cancelable by it under section 167-a of the Insurance Law. The present record provides no basis to establish this contention made for the first time in the reply brief submitted by the insurer. In so noting, the court is not in a position to consider the effect, if any, of such cancelability.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

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

DeVanzo v. Newark Insurance, 337 N.E.2d 131, 37 N.Y.2d 733, 374 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2102 (N.Y. 1975).

337 N.E.2d 131 (DeVanzo v. Newark Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Emisphere Technologies, Inc.
408 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Indiana, 2006)
US Trust Co. of New York v. Alpert
10 F. Supp. 2d 290 (S.D. New York, 1998)
Cruden v. Bank of New York
957 F.2d 961 (Second Circuit, 1992)
Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional De Costa Rica, S.A.
570 F. Supp. 870 (S.D. New York, 1983)