Norman v. Aetna Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norman v. Aetna Life Insurance

38 A.D.2d 699, 328 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 699 (Norman v. Aetna Life 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

Norman v. Aetna Life Insurance, 38 A.D.2d 699, 328 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 12, 1971, denying defendant, Aetna’s, motion to preclude, to examine witnesses before trial and for discovery and inspection, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of directing plaintiff to respond to items F, G, H, and J of Aetna’s demand for a bill of particulars and directing plaintiff to disclose the repair work done on the automobile operated by her deceased husband, and otherwise affirmed. Said information is to be supplied within five days after service upon plaintiff by appellant of a copy of this court’s order, with notice of entry thereon. The items of Aetna’s demand, enumerated above, are neither oppressive, burdensome, nor improper. They relate to the central issue in the ease of whether or not plaintiff’s husband died by accidental means or as the result of a pre-existing heart condition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to timely move to modify said demand requires that she be directed to promptly respond thereto (Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A D 2d 916). Upon her pretrial examination plaintiff expressly agreed to annex to the transcript of her testimony the repair work done to the automobile after her husband’s death. Plaintiff has never furnished this information. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Nunez, Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 12, 1971, denying defendant, Aetna’s, motion to preclude, to examine witnesses before trial and for discovery and inspection, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of directing plaintiff to respond to items F, G, H, and J of Aetna’s demand for a bill of particulars and directing plaintiff to disclose the repair work done on the automobile operated by her deceased husband, and otherwise affirmed. Said information is to be supplied within five days after service upon plaintiff by appellant of a copy of this court’s order, with notice of entry thereon. The items of Aetna’s demand, enumerated above, are neither oppressive, burdensome, nor improper. They relate to the central issue in the ease of whether or not plaintiff’s husband died by accidental means or as the result of a pre-existing heart condition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to timely move to modify said demand requires that she be directed to promptly respond thereto (Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A D 2d 916). Upon her pretrial examination plaintiff expressly agreed to annex to the transcript of her testimony the repair work done to the automobile after her husband’s death. Plaintiff has never furnished this information. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Nunez, Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 699, 328 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-aetna-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1972.