Perrotta v. Empire Mutual Insurance
This text of 62 Misc. 2d 925 (Perrotta v. Empire Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The finding of the trial court that plaintiff was an innocent purchaser for value of a stolen automobile is not questioned by defendant on this appeal. In the light of such finding, it is our opinion that plaintiff had an insurable interest in the automobile at the time it was stolen from him (Skaff v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 215 So. 2d 35 [Fla.]; Barnett v. London Assur. Corp., 138 Wash. 673; Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 1 N. J. Misc. 315). However, his recovery should be limited to the amount demanded in the complaint (see Michalowski v. Ey, 7 N Y 2d 71).
The judgment should be unanimously modified by reducing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery to $5,050, with interest and appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified, affirmed with $25 costs to plaintiff.
•Concur — Margett, P. J., Rinaldi and Cone, JJ.
Judgment modified, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Misc. 2d 925, 310 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrotta-v-empire-mutual-insurance-nyappterm-1970.