Lindner v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lindner v. Hartford Fire Insurance

33 A.D.2d 686, 306 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2913

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 686 (Lindner v. Hartford Fire 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

Lindner v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 33 A.D.2d 686, 306 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon an automobile theft insurance policy, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 13, 1968 after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Findings below inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made herewith. The proof at the trial established 'that the automobile insured under the subject policy and subsequently stolen from plaintiff was a stolen car when it was bought by plaintiff; and the trial court so found. The trial court further found that plaintiff was an innocent purchaser of that stolen car and bottomed its judgment for plaintiff on that finding. In our opinion, the latter finding was against the weight of the credible evidence; the evidence established that plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser for value; he did not have an insurable interest in the car; and the policy consequently is not enforceable (see Insurance Law, § 148). In view of this determination, we neither reach nor decide the question whether an innocent purchaser of a stolen car has an insurable interest in it. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur. [58 Misc 2d 86.]

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

In an action to recover upon an automobile theft insurance policy, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 13, 1968 after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Findings below inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made herewith. The proof at the trial established 'that the automobile insured under the subject policy and subsequently stolen from plaintiff was a stolen car when it was bought by plaintiff; and the trial court so found. The trial court further found that plaintiff was an innocent purchaser of that stolen car and bottomed its judgment for plaintiff on that finding. In our opinion, the latter finding was against the weight of the credible evidence; the evidence established that plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser for value; he did not have an insurable interest in the car; and the policy consequently is not enforceable (see Insurance Law, § 148). In view of this determination, we neither reach nor decide the question whether an innocent purchaser of a stolen car has an insurable interest in it. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur. [58 Misc 2d 86.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 686, 306 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindner-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack