Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.

31 A.D.2d 527, 295 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850

Opinion

On reargument of this appeal by leave of this court (30 A D 2d 937) consequent on the Court of Appeals remittitur for [528]*528further proceedings in accordance with its opinion (21 N Y 2d 440; see, also, 22 N Y 2d 722), the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 28, 1966, is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s loss was an “ 'expense ’ to the bailee ‘ resulting and/or arising from, through or in connection with the [its] legal liability * * * in respect to * * * the property of others under [its] control * * * for which [it was] legally liable’.” (21 N Y 2d 440, 446) within the meaning of the policy of insurance. We heretofore held that in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals, this court’s decision (28 A D 2d 839) rested solely on the law. (29 A D 2d 935). No new relevant questions of fact have been advanced. All questions of law have been decided by the Court of Appeals (21 N Y 2d 440). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 31 A.D.2d 527, 295 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

31 A.D.2d 527 (Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.