Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. I. Kalfus Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. I. Kalfus Co.

339 N.E.2d 621, 37 N.Y.2d 820, 376 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2208

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 339 N.E.2d 621 (Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. I. Kalfus Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. I. Kalfus Co., 339 N.E.2d 621, 37 N.Y.2d 820, 376 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2208 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs.

Both the trial court and a majority of the Appellate Division found as an ultimate fact that the circumstances in this case did not give insured any notice that there was a possibility of liability for any defect in the rebuilt used machine it had previously sold. Both courts stressed that insured learned of the accident only incidentally because he was called to inspect the correctness of the reassembly of the machine sometime after the accident. Involved is a finding of fact [822]*822beyond review by this court. The circumstances are quite different from those in 875 Forest Ave. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (37 AD2d 11, affd 30 NY2d 726), and Empire City Subway Co. v Greater N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co. (35 NY2d 8). In the Forest Ave. case, there was no basis to permit a finding or inference of notice. In the Empire City case, the circumstances established that an accident had occurred and the only question was its location. Indeed, the location was determinative of the identity of the one subject to liability; hence, the reversal for failure to offer any credible explanation of the delay in giving notice (p 14).

On this view, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of fact by the courts below, and this court is powerless to overturn the result.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs.

Both the trial court and a majority of the Appellate Division found as an ultimate fact that the circumstances in this case did not give insured any notice that there was a possibility of liability for any defect in the rebuilt used machine it had previously sold. Both courts stressed that insured learned of the accident only incidentally because he was called to inspect the correctness of the reassembly of the machine sometime after the accident. Involved is a finding of fact [822]*822beyond review by this court. The circumstances are quite different from those in 875 Forest Ave. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (37 AD2d 11, affd 30 NY2d 726), and Empire City Subway Co. v Greater N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co. (35 NY2d 8). In the Forest Ave. case, there was no basis to permit a finding or inference of notice. In the Empire City case, the circumstances established that an accident had occurred and the only question was its location. Indeed, the location was determinative of the identity of the one subject to liability; hence, the reversal for failure to offer any credible explanation of the delay in giving notice (p 14).

On this view, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of fact by the courts below, and this court is powerless to overturn the result.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 N.E.2d 621, 37 N.Y.2d 820, 376 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greater-new-york-mutual-insurance-v-i-kalfus-co-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack