Galietta v. Commercial Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galietta v. Commercial Insurance

17 A.D.2d 629, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8656

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 629 (Galietta v. Commercial 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

Galietta v. Commercial Insurance, 17 A.D.2d 629, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a derivative action pursuant to statute (Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 1, par. [b]), in which the plaintiffs, on the basis of an automobile liability policy issued by the defendant, seek judgment against said insurer for the amount of a judgment in their favor in a negligence action previously instituted by them against the persons insured, the parties cross-appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated May 2, 1061, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113). Defendant claims that it had cancelled the insurance policy by reason of the fraud of the named insured who had falsely represented that she was the owner of the automobile, whereas in fact the actual owner was the person who operated it at the time of the accident. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Justice at Special Term that issues of fact are presented and that such issues must be resolved after a plenary trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In a derivative action pursuant to statute (Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 1, par. [b]), in which the plaintiffs, on the basis of an automobile liability policy issued by the defendant, seek judgment against said insurer for the amount of a judgment in their favor in a negligence action previously instituted by them against the persons insured, the parties cross-appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated May 2, 1061, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113). Defendant claims that it had cancelled the insurance policy by reason of the fraud of the named insured who had falsely represented that she was the owner of the automobile, whereas in fact the actual owner was the person who operated it at the time of the accident. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Justice at Special Term that issues of fact are presented and that such issues must be resolved after a plenary trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 629, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galietta-v-commercial-insurance-nyappdiv-1962.