Levy v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co.

286 A.D. 825, 143 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4217

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

DecidedJune 21, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D. 825 (Levy v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co.) 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

Levy v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co., 286 A.D. 825, 143 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s claim in her first cause of action that the schedule of specific losses enumerated in Part I of the policy did not apply to her irrecoverable loss of sight of an eye is untenable. Plaintiff’s cause of action is under Part I of the policy as set forth in the second cause of action. Plaintiff was entitled to the partial summary judgment she recovered. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The question which remains for trial is when the loss of plaintiff’s sight became “irrecoverable”. Determination unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bastow, JJ. [See post, p. 1011.]

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

Plaintiff’s claim in her first cause of action that the schedule of specific losses enumerated in Part I of the policy did not apply to her irrecoverable loss of sight of an eye is untenable. Plaintiff’s cause of action is under Part I of the policy as set forth in the second cause of action. Plaintiff was entitled to the partial summary judgment she recovered. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The question which remains for trial is when the loss of plaintiff’s sight became “irrecoverable”. Determination unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bastow, JJ. [See post, p. 1011.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 825, 143 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-firemans-fund-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1955.