Reinertsen v. Fire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reinertsen v. Fire

27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2839

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 563 (Reinertsen v. Fire) 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

Reinertsen v. Fire, 27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 22, 1966, and judgment, dated June 23, 1966, entered thereon, reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied. It appears that there is a triable issue as to whether a timely notice was served upon appellant (Gluck v. London & Lancashire Ind. Co., 2 A D 2d 751, affd. 2 N Y 2d 953; Greaves v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A D 2d 609; Marcus v. London & Lancashire Ind. Co., 6 A D 2d 702). We cannot say that the delay in notifying the driver’s insurance carrier was unreasonable as a matter of law. Furthermore, the question of whether the driver’s insurance policy was in effect at the time of the occurrence is factually disputed (CPLR 3212). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 22, 1966, and judgment, dated June 23, 1966, entered thereon, reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied. It appears that there is a triable issue as to whether a timely notice was served upon appellant (Gluck v. London & Lancashire Ind. Co., 2 A D 2d 751, affd. 2 N Y 2d 953; Greaves v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A D 2d 609; Marcus v. London & Lancashire Ind. Co., 6 A D 2d 702). We cannot say that the delay in notifying the driver’s insurance carrier was unreasonable as a matter of law. Furthermore, the question of whether the driver’s insurance policy was in effect at the time of the occurrence is factually disputed (CPLR 3212). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 563, 277 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinertsen-v-fire-nyappdiv-1966.