Quality Motors of Rochester, Inc. v. (American) Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quality Motors of Rochester, Inc. v. (American) Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

256 A.D. 892, 9 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9267

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 892 (Quality Motors of Rochester, Inc. v. (American) Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.) 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

Quality Motors of Rochester, Inc. v. (American) Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 256 A.D. 892, 9 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for judgment granted, with ten dollars costs, damages to be assessed by a jury at the Trial Term. Memorandum: There is no substantial difference between the exclusion clause in the policy in suit and the exclusion clause in the policy under consideration in Smith v. American Automobile Fire Insurance Co. (274 N. Y. 626). As the facts and circumstances in the two cases are similar, that case is controlling in this action. (See, also, Dibble v. Travelers Ins. Co., 163 Misc. 540.) All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action under a liability insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for judgment granted, with ten dollars costs, damages to be assessed by a jury at the Trial Term. Memorandum: There is no substantial difference between the exclusion clause in the policy in suit and the exclusion clause in the policy under consideration in Smith v. American Automobile Fire Insurance Co. (274 N. Y. 626). As the facts and circumstances in the two cases are similar, that case is controlling in this action. (See, also, Dibble v. Travelers Ins. Co., 163 Misc. 540.) All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action under a liability insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 892, 9 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quality-motors-of-rochester-inc-v-american-lumbermens-mutual-casualty-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack