Kenney v. Angerer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kenney v. Angerer

42 A.D.2d 963, 347 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3494

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 963 (Kenney v. Angerer) 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

Kenney v. Angerer, 42 A.D.2d 963, 347 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, loss of services and medical expenses, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 5, 1973, as, in denying plaintiffs’ motion for inspection of defendants’ automobile liability insurance policy, directed defendants to disclose the financial coverage limits of the policy. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion denied in all respects. In our opinion it was error, as a matter of law, to direct defendants to disclose the financial coverage limits of their automobile liability insurance policy (Mosca v. Per,sky, 42 A D 2d 708). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Gulotta and Chrjst, JJ., concur; Latham, J., concurs, on constraint of the majority’s position in Mosca v. Pensky (42 A D 2d 708). Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from, with the following memorandum: The trend of authority throughout the country and the logistics of our calendar practice mandate the disclosure of the financial coverage limits of a defendant’s automobile liability insurance policy at the earliest possible time in the course of the litigation. ,:| ■

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, loss of services and medical expenses, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 5, 1973, as, in denying plaintiffs’ motion for inspection of defendants’ automobile liability insurance policy, directed defendants to disclose the financial coverage limits of the policy. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion denied in all respects. In our opinion it was error, as a matter of law, to direct defendants to disclose the financial coverage limits of their automobile liability insurance policy (Mosca v. Per,sky, 42 A D 2d 708). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Gulotta and Chrjst, JJ., concur; Latham, J., concurs, on constraint of the majority’s position in Mosca v. Pensky (42 A D 2d 708). Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from, with the following memorandum: The trend of authority throughout the country and the logistics of our calendar practice mandate the disclosure of the financial coverage limits of a defendant’s automobile liability insurance policy at the earliest possible time in the course of the litigation. ,:| ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 963, 347 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-angerer-nyappdiv-1973.