Naiman v. Niagara Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naiman v. Niagara Fire Insurance

1 A.D.2d 946, 151 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676

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

DecidedApril 24, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 946 (Naiman v. Niagara 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

Naiman v. Niagara Fire Insurance, 1 A.D.2d 946, 151 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Concur— Rabin, Cox and Bastow, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., concurs in the following memorandum: I agree that the judgment should be affirmed. The only question which is troubling, is the refusal of insured to answer certain questions on the examination conducted under the policy (Happy Hank Auction Co. v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 286 App. Div. 505, 510; Hallas v. North Riv. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 279 App. Div. 15, affd. 304 N. Y. 671). However, since the examination was not subject to judicial supervision, in the circumstances of this ease the company may not rely merely on the refusal to answer without bringing home to the insured and her counsel, upon whose advice insured was acting, that it would regard such refusal as a breach of the condition of the policy.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Concur— Rabin, Cox and Bastow, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., concurs in the following memorandum: I agree that the judgment should be affirmed. The only question which is troubling, is the refusal of insured to answer certain questions on the examination conducted under the policy (Happy Hank Auction Co. v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 286 App. Div. 505, 510; Hallas v. North Riv. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 279 App. Div. 15, affd. 304 N. Y. 671). However, since the examination was not subject to judicial supervision, in the circumstances of this ease the company may not rely merely on the refusal to answer without bringing home to the insured and her counsel, upon whose advice insured was acting, that it would regard such refusal as a breach of the condition of the policy.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 946, 151 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naiman-v-niagara-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack