Electrovoice International, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co.

213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 272 (Electrovoice International, Inc. v. American Home Assurance 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
Electrovoice International, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., 213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J., and a jury), entered December 8, 1993, in favor of defendant and against plaintiff dismissing an action on an [273]*273insurance policy for property damage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs owner having testified that plaintiffs bookkeeper was unavailable to answer the subpoena that defendant had served, the court properly allowed defendant to controvert such evidence by the contradictory testimony of its accountant that he had seen the bookkeeper at plaintiffs premises at or about the time the subpoena was served, since this evidence bore directly on a material fact in dispute (see, Badr v Hogan, 75 NY2d 629, 634-635), namely, plaintiffs fraud in concealing a subpoenaed witness during disclosure who had direct knowledge of plaintiffs inventory. Evidence of other insurance claims was properly admitted as relevant to the issue of motive raised by the affirmative defenses of fraud and false swearing (see, Terpstra v Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 26 NY2d 70, 76), and it was for the trier of fact to determine the materiality of plaintiffs nondisclosure of prior losses in its insurance application (see, Ebisons Harounian Imports v Travelers Indem. Co., 195 AD2d 371). The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding plaintiffs evidence of inventory as measured for a prior claim on the grounds that it was unreliable and would confuse the jury and unreasonably protract the trial. Defendant provided appropriate disclosure regarding its expert (see, Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700).

We have considered plaintiffs arguments regarding the court’s charge and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Gomez v. Southwest Airlines
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Rosenthal v. Allstate Insurance
248 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electrovoice-international-inc-v-american-home-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1995.