Gray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

156 A.D.2d 979, 550 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16156

This text of 156 A.D.2d 979 (Gray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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
Gray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 156 A.D.2d 979, 550 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Since Janice Gray had no insurable interest in the automobile, it was error for Supreme Court to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of her claim. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Burke was properly denied because there is an issue of fact whether Burke was a principal with whom defendant had a contractual relationship. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 A.D.2d 979, 550 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1989.