Perrotta v. Middlesex Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrotta v. Middlesex Mutual Insurance

37 A.D.2d 783, 325 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 783 (Perrotta v. Middlesex Mutual 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

Perrotta v. Middlesex Mutual Insurance, 37 A.D.2d 783, 325 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a policy of insurance for property damage, defendant appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated January 20, 1971, which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau, First District, entered March 5, 1970, in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict. Order affirmed, with costs. We are of the opinion that the activities of plaintiff were sufficient to permit a jury to find that he had occupied the premises and thus that the premises were not vacant and that plaintiff was not absent therefrom. Insofar as Page v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (15 A D 2d 306) may be inconsistent, we decline to follow it. As we view it, the failure to sleep in the premises is not fatal to a plaintiff who had been in the premises for the eight days preceding the loss. Thus there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that plaintiff occupied the premises and that they were not vacant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Gulotta, J., not voting.

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

In an action to recover upon a policy of insurance for property damage, defendant appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated January 20, 1971, which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau, First District, entered March 5, 1970, in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict. Order affirmed, with costs. We are of the opinion that the activities of plaintiff were sufficient to permit a jury to find that he had occupied the premises and thus that the premises were not vacant and that plaintiff was not absent therefrom. Insofar as Page v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (15 A D 2d 306) may be inconsistent, we decline to follow it. As we view it, the failure to sleep in the premises is not fatal to a plaintiff who had been in the premises for the eight days preceding the loss. Thus there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that plaintiff occupied the premises and that they were not vacant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Gulotta, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 783, 325 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrotta-v-middlesex-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack