Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Mott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Mott

216 A.D.2d 546, 628 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 546 (Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Mott) 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

Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Mott, 216 A.D.2d 546, 628 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover insurance premiums due under a liability insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered November 15, 1993, which, upon a special jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4111 (b), is in favor of the plaintiff in the total amount of $69,705.35.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"In reviewing the record to ascertain whether the jury’s conclusion rested upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, great deference must be accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury” (Tarantino v Vanguard Leasing Co., 187 AD2d 422, 423). After hearing all of the evidence, the jury made a determination which is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover insurance premiums due under a liability insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered November 15, 1993, which, upon a special jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4111 (b), is in favor of the plaintiff in the total amount of $69,705.35.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"In reviewing the record to ascertain whether the jury’s conclusion rested upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, great deference must be accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury” (Tarantino v Vanguard Leasing Co., 187 AD2d 422, 423). After hearing all of the evidence, the jury made a determination which is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 546, 628 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-vernon-fire-insurance-v-mott-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack