Hill v. Moss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Moss

52 A.D.2d 903, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12750

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 903 (Hill v. Moss) 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

Hill v. Moss, 52 A.D.2d 903, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 27, 1975, affirmed, with separate bills of costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs, except appellant Maryland Casualty (Maryland); such costs to be paid by appellant Maryland. We affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Graci at Trial Term. His determination of the suit was fully warranted by" the evidence. The documentary evidence, in particular, justifies his characterizations of the conduct of appellant Maryland. We add only that the manner and timing of Maryland’s eve-of-trial assertion that it did [904]*904not insure any party to the suit (aptly described by Allstate’s attorney, Harold Fields, as "a bolt out of the blue”) precluded plaintiffs from a full and fair opportunity to contest, at the prior trial, Maryland’s position and to make a proper record for appeal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 27, 1975, affirmed, with separate bills of costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs, except appellant Maryland Casualty (Maryland); such costs to be paid by appellant Maryland. We affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Graci at Trial Term. His determination of the suit was fully warranted by" the evidence. The documentary evidence, in particular, justifies his characterizations of the conduct of appellant Maryland. We add only that the manner and timing of Maryland’s eve-of-trial assertion that it did [904]*904not insure any party to the suit (aptly described by Allstate’s attorney, Harold Fields, as "a bolt out of the blue”) precluded plaintiffs from a full and fair opportunity to contest, at the prior trial, Maryland’s position and to make a proper record for appeal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 903, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-moss-nyappdiv-1976.