Eisemann v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisemann v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

272 A.D.2d 888

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

DecidedJune 24, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 888 (Eisemann v. Fidelity & Deposit 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

Eisemann v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 A.D.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint does not contain the essential elements of an action in fraud; nor can it be upheld on the theory that it alleges malicious interference by defendants with plaintiff’s rights under the policy of insurance with the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. On the facts alleged we are unable to perceive how plaintiff can set forth a good cause of action against defendant-appellant. The order appealed from should, accordingly, be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant.

Cohn, Callahan, Peek and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

The complaint does not contain the essential elements of an action in fraud; nor can it be upheld on the theory that it alleges malicious interference by defendants with plaintiff’s rights under the policy of insurance with the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. On the facts alleged we are unable to perceive how plaintiff can set forth a good cause of action against defendant-appellant. The order appealed from should, accordingly, be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant.

Cohn, Callahan, Peek and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisemann-v-fidelity-deposit-co-nyappdiv-1947.