Howard Stores Corp. v. Lexington Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard Stores Corp. v. Lexington Insurance

156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15391

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 182 (Howard Stores Corp. v. Lexington Insurance) 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

Howard Stores Corp. v. Lexington Insurance, 156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered September 27, 1988, after jury trial, wherein verdict was rendered against defendant Lexington Insurance Company only, in the amount of $137,000, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

The question of whether said insurer had bound itself to provide business interruption coverage, based on any number of theories, was properly submitted to the jury. Likewise, the record substantiates the decisions by the Trial Judge (on plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict) and the jury (in its verdict) that the evidence did not warrant recovery against either of the defendant brokers on theories of breach of contract or negligence. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered September 27, 1988, after jury trial, wherein verdict was rendered against defendant Lexington Insurance Company only, in the amount of $137,000, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

The question of whether said insurer had bound itself to provide business interruption coverage, based on any number of theories, was properly submitted to the jury. Likewise, the record substantiates the decisions by the Trial Judge (on plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict) and the jury (in its verdict) that the evidence did not warrant recovery against either of the defendant brokers on theories of breach of contract or negligence. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-stores-corp-v-lexington-insurance-nyappdiv-1989.