Lackow v. Insurance Co. of North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lackow v. Insurance Co. of North America

52 A.D.2d 579, 382 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12155

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

DecidedApril 5, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 579 (Lackow v. Insurance Co. of North America) 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

Lackow v. Insurance Co. of North America, 52 A.D.2d 579, 382 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on an insurance policy, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 18, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The assured’s employee’s position at the time of the robbery, at the rear of the vehicle opening its trunk, was in compliance with the "Jeweler’s Block Policy” provision that he be "actually in or upon such Vehicle” at the time of the loss (cf. Kinscherf Co., v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 234 App Div 385; Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on an insurance policy, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 18, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The assured’s employee’s position at the time of the robbery, at the rear of the vehicle opening its trunk, was in compliance with the "Jeweler’s Block Policy” provision that he be "actually in or upon such Vehicle” at the time of the loss (cf. Kinscherf Co., v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 234 App Div 385; Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 579, 382 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lackow-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack