Kamer v. ITT Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamer v. ITT Life Insurance

33 A.D.2d 901, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5649

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kamer v. ITT Life Insurance. Read the opinion of the Court — 33 A.D.2d 682 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1970·Published

Opinion

—■Motion for reargument or to modify order of affirmance denied, with $20 costs. The dismissal of the counterclaims is upon the merits. The first counterclaim alleged against Bernard Kamer is not directed against a “third party”; he was a member of the partnership (Parkchester General Hospital) and the partnership was the beneficiary under and entitled to receive the proceeds of the life insurance policy. To allow the maintenance of the counterclaim would defeat the purpose of section 155 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Insurance Law. Concur — Eager, J. P., McGivern, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

—■Motion for reargument or to modify order of affirmance denied, with $20 costs. The dismissal of the counterclaims is upon the merits. The first counterclaim alleged against Bernard Kamer is not directed against a “third party”; he was a member of the partnership (Parkchester General Hospital) and the partnership was the beneficiary under and entitled to receive the proceeds of the life insurance policy. To allow the maintenance of the counterclaim would defeat the purpose of section 155 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Insurance Law. Concur — Eager, J. P., McGivern, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Kamer v. ITT Life Insurance, 33 A.D.2d 901, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

33 A.D.2d 901 (Kamer v. ITT Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.