Gross v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gross v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance

142 Misc. 918, 256 N.Y.S. 570, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 996

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 Misc. 918 (Gross v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gross v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance, 142 Misc. 918, 256 N.Y.S. 570, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The ring involved herein was a ladies’ ring which the assured, a male person, had bought some time previously for presentation as an engagement ring. It was being carried at the time of its loss because the assured intended to sell it — the engagement having been broken. Under such circumstances it was not “ a personal effect usually carried by a tourist or a traveller,” nor was it “ personal jewelry belonging to and used or worn by the assured or a member of his family.” In any event it comes within the exception in the policy excluding “ merchandise for sale.”

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed.

Callahan and Untermyer, JJ., concur on the merits, with costs; Levy, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

The ring involved herein was a ladies’ ring which the assured, a male person, had bought some time previously for presentation as an engagement ring. It was being carried at the time of its loss because the assured intended to sell it — the engagement having been broken. Under such circumstances it was not “ a personal effect usually carried by a tourist or a traveller,” nor was it “ personal jewelry belonging to and used or worn by the assured or a member of his family.” In any event it comes within the exception in the policy excluding “ merchandise for sale.”

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed.

Callahan and Untermyer, JJ., concur on the merits, with costs; Levy, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 918, 256 N.Y.S. 570, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack