Imber v. Consolidated Indemnity & Insurance

147 Misc. 758, 264 N.Y.S. 554, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1539
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMay 25, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 Misc. 758 (Imber v. Consolidated Indemnity & 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
Imber v. Consolidated Indemnity & Insurance, 147 Misc. 758, 264 N.Y.S. 554, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The obligation of the defendant under section 17 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was for the payment of any judgment recovered against the principal insured. Such a judgment had been obtained herein and execution thereon returned unsatisfied. The taking of an appeal without giving an undertaking to stay execution would not render plaintiff’s action against the insurer premature. (Pape v. Red Cab Mutual Casualty Co., 128 Misc. 456.) The undertaking furnished on appeal herein was not [759]*759effectual to stay execution nor should it hinder the progress of this suit as it did not comply with section 594 of the Civil Practice Act. Such section provides that execution shall be stayed on giving security for the payment of “ the sum recovered or directed to be paid by the judgment.” The present undertaking secures payment of only a part of the sum recovered. Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to summary judgment.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Related

Hecht v. James and Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
345 P.2d 246 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 Misc. 758, 264 N.Y.S. 554, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imber-v-consolidated-indemnity-insurance-nyappterm-1933.