Piazza v. National Reserve Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piazza v. National Reserve Insurance

248 A.D. 745

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

DecidedJune 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 745 (Piazza v. National Reserve 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

Piazza v. National Reserve Insurance, 248 A.D. 745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon a policy of insurance to recover damages for loss by fire, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted in the interest of justice, without costs, upon condition that within ten days from the entry of the order hereon the appellant pay $100 to the respondents or to their attorney; in default of which the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs. This disposition of the appeal will give the appellant an opportunity to make such motion with reference to the order of preclusion as it may be advised. Upon the disputed facts with relation to the oral agreement between the attorneys about the order of preclusion, we think a mistrial should have been granted upon suitable terms. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a policy of insurance to recover damages for loss by fire, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted in the interest of justice, without costs, upon condition that within ten days from the entry of the order hereon the appellant pay $100 to the respondents or to their attorney; in default of which the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs. This disposition of the appeal will give the appellant an opportunity to make such motion with reference to the order of preclusion as it may be advised. Upon the disputed facts with relation to the oral agreement between the attorneys about the order of preclusion, we think a mistrial should have been granted upon suitable terms. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piazza-v-national-reserve-insurance-nyappdiv-1936.