In Sportswear, Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Sportswear, Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

41 A.D.2d 922, 343 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447

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

DecidedMay 17, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 922 (In Sportswear, Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual 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

In Sportswear, Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance, 41 A.D.2d 922, 343 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 16, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment striking the answer denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Damage occurred to merchandise at nlaintiff’s place of business by reason of discharge of water from a sprinkler. This dispute is not concerned with property damage but involves the question of whether plaintiff is coveredj for loss of profits resulting from inability timely to replace the damaged\ merchandise. Disposition must await a trial of this and other issues, including the issue of timeliness itself. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewieh, Kupferman, Lane and Tilzer,. JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 16, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment striking the answer denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Damage occurred to merchandise at nlaintiff’s place of business by reason of discharge of water from a sprinkler. This dispute is not concerned with property damage but involves the question of whether plaintiff is coveredj for loss of profits resulting from inability timely to replace the damaged\ merchandise. Disposition must await a trial of this and other issues, including the issue of timeliness itself. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewieh, Kupferman, Lane and Tilzer,. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 922, 343 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-sportswear-inc-v-arkwright-boston-manufacturers-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1973.