Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Zook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Zook

53 A.D.2d 661, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13398

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

DecidedJune 21, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 661 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Zook) 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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Zook, 53 A.D.2d 661, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to declare that defendants were not insured under the terms of a certain policy of insurance, defendants Zook appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 15, 1976, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of plaintiff and against them, upon the trial court’s grant of a motion for a directed verdict. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. The issues raised by this action are the same as those raised in defendant Hartford’s answer in Zook v Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. (53 AD2d 667). As all of the plaintiff’s rights can be determined in the aforementioned action, this suit was superfluous. It should, therefore, be dismissed (cf. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Beers Chevrolet Co., 250 App Div 348). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to declare that defendants were not insured under the terms of a certain policy of insurance, defendants Zook appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 15, 1976, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of plaintiff and against them, upon the trial court’s grant of a motion for a directed verdict. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. The issues raised by this action are the same as those raised in defendant Hartford’s answer in Zook v Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. (53 AD2d 667). As all of the plaintiff’s rights can be determined in the aforementioned action, this suit was superfluous. It should, therefore, be dismissed (cf. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Beers Chevrolet Co., 250 App Div 348). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 661, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-zook-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack