Mandor v. Lawyers Title Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandor v. Lawyers Title Insurance

35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 577 (Mandor v. Lawyers Title 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

Mandor v. Lawyers Title Insurance, 35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Martuseello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the evidence tendered is insufficient to prove plaintiff’s allegation that a contract to insure title was made by Rosen, the alleged agent for defendant, and Rich, plaintiff’s attorney. The mere fact that the record revealed that Rosen prepared a title report and delivered it to Rich is no proof that Rosen had agreed with Rich to prepare such a report, much less that Rosen had agreed with Rich to insure title, particularly in view of Rich’s admission that no premium was paid either by him or plaintiff for title insurance. Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence adduced at the trial [578]*578was likewise insufficient to show that Rosen was an agent of defendant who could bind defendant to insure title.

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

No opinion. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Martuseello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the evidence tendered is insufficient to prove plaintiff’s allegation that a contract to insure title was made by Rosen, the alleged agent for defendant, and Rich, plaintiff’s attorney. The mere fact that the record revealed that Rosen prepared a title report and delivered it to Rich is no proof that Rosen had agreed with Rich to prepare such a report, much less that Rosen had agreed with Rich to insure title, particularly in view of Rich’s admission that no premium was paid either by him or plaintiff for title insurance. Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence adduced at the trial [578]*578was likewise insufficient to show that Rosen was an agent of defendant who could bind defendant to insure title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 577, 314 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandor-v-lawyers-title-insurance-nyappdiv-1970.