General Credit Corp. v. Travelers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

General Credit Corp. v. Travelers

288 A.D.2d 66, 732 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 66 (General Credit Corp. v. Travelers) 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

General Credit Corp. v. Travelers, 288 A.D.2d 66, 732 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover insurance proceeds allegedly payable, under the subject policy issued by defendant, by reason of the purported theft of 13 refrigerated trailers in which plaintiff insured had a security interest, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted in light of plaintiff’s failure to raise any triable issue as to whether the alleged covered event under the subject policy, i.e., the loss of the trailers by theft, actually occurred (see, Vasile v Hartford Ace. & Indent. Co., 213 AD2d 541). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the mere fact that the trailers were no longer at the location originally specified at the time the security interest was given did not, under the circumstances of this case, warrant the inference that the trailers had been lost, much less that they had been stolen (cf., Moneta Dev. Corp. v Generali Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 428). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover insurance proceeds allegedly payable, under the subject policy issued by defendant, by reason of the purported theft of 13 refrigerated trailers in which plaintiff insured had a security interest, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted in light of plaintiff’s failure to raise any triable issue as to whether the alleged covered event under the subject policy, i.e., the loss of the trailers by theft, actually occurred (see, Vasile v Hartford Ace. & Indent. Co., 213 AD2d 541). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the mere fact that the trailers were no longer at the location originally specified at the time the security interest was given did not, under the circumstances of this case, warrant the inference that the trailers had been lost, much less that they had been stolen (cf., Moneta Dev. Corp. v Generali Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 428). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 66, 732 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-credit-corp-v-travelers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack