Glens Falls Insurance v. Poling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glens Falls Insurance v. Poling

26 A.D.2d 799, 273 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3405

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 799 (Glens Falls Insurance v. Poling) 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

Glens Falls Insurance v. Poling, 26 A.D.2d 799, 273 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 10, 1965, granting motion to dismiss complaint unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion denied. The complaint is in an action for a declaratory judgment by an insurance company on the question of coverage. Special Term granted the motion on the ground that the suit was untimely. This conclusion was reached on the ground that the pending negligence action would determine the question. It would not. The issue in the instant action is whether or not defendant Samuel Poling was the owner of the motor boat involved in the accident. However, Poling’s liability to the plaintiff in the negligence action will dépeñd on his operation of the boat, regardless of whether or not he was the owner. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 10, 1965, granting motion to dismiss complaint unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion denied. The complaint is in an action for a declaratory judgment by an insurance company on the question of coverage. Special Term granted the motion on the ground that the suit was untimely. This conclusion was reached on the ground that the pending negligence action would determine the question. It would not. The issue in the instant action is whether or not defendant Samuel Poling was the owner of the motor boat involved in the accident. However, Poling’s liability to the plaintiff in the negligence action will dépeñd on his operation of the boat, regardless of whether or not he was the owner. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 799, 273 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glens-falls-insurance-v-poling-nyappdiv-1966.