Enden v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enden v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

225 A.D.2d 515, 638 N.Y.2d 774, 638 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1862

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 515 (Enden v. Nationwide Mutual 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

Enden v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 225 A.D.2d 515, 638 N.Y.2d 774, 638 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[516]*516The testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses at trial, as well as their incomplete business records, raised crucial questions of fact regarding whether in the first instance the plaintiffs suffered a loss of business income/property by means of a burglary, and/or whether any such alleged loss amounted to as much as $75,000, which was the full face amount of the commercial insurance policy at issue. Since it cannot be said that the jury could not have found for the defendant by any rational process, it was error for the trial court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366; see also, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C4401:4, at 407). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

[516]*516The testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses at trial, as well as their incomplete business records, raised crucial questions of fact regarding whether in the first instance the plaintiffs suffered a loss of business income/property by means of a burglary, and/or whether any such alleged loss amounted to as much as $75,000, which was the full face amount of the commercial insurance policy at issue. Since it cannot be said that the jury could not have found for the defendant by any rational process, it was error for the trial court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366; see also, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C4401:4, at 407). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 515, 638 N.Y.2d 774, 638 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enden-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack