Phoenix Insurance v. Simonson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phoenix Insurance v. Simonson

240 A.D. 914

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 914 (Phoenix Insurance v. Simonson) 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

Phoenix Insurance v. Simonson, 240 A.D. 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and the matter referred back to the Special Term for an assessment of the amount due the plaintiff, pursuant to subdivisions 4 and 8 of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, at which time the defendants may prove any deductions from the plaintiff’s claim to which they may be entitled, by reason of canceled policies or otherwise. In our opinion, the allegations in the complaint of conversion are surplusage and may be disregarded. Eliminating those allegations, the complaint states a cause of action on contract. Defendants admit an unliquidated indebtedness to the plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and the matter referred back to the Special Term for an assessment of the amount due the plaintiff, pursuant to subdivisions 4 and 8 of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, at which time the defendants may prove any deductions from the plaintiff’s claim to which they may be entitled, by reason of canceled policies or otherwise. In our opinion, the allegations in the complaint of conversion are surplusage and may be disregarded. Eliminating those allegations, the complaint states a cause of action on contract. Defendants admit an unliquidated indebtedness to the plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-insurance-v-simonson-nyappdiv-1933.