Russell v. New York Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. New York Life Insurance

238 A.D. 887

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 887 (Russell v. New York Life 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

Russell v. New York Life Insurance, 238 A.D. 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision and order [237 App. Div. 862] amended by including among the findings of fact reversed Nos. 23 and 35; also all findings of fact contained in the conclusions of law; and by making the following additional findings of fact: That the termination of the original agency contract between the plaintiff and the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s Nylie membership and all of his Nylie rights, and that thereafter plaintiff became entitled to no further Nylie payments. That under the Nylie portions of the contract plaintiff was entitled only to commissions on premiums received by defendant from policies written through his personal efforts. The employment of Holliday and Chapman to solicit insurance business in the absence of plaintiff was concealed from defendant. Plaintiff violated the contract by claiming and receiving from defendant Nylie commissions on premiums from policies written by these two men. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Decision and order [237 App. Div. 862] amended by including among the findings of fact reversed Nos. 23 and 35; also all findings of fact contained in the conclusions of law; and by making the following additional findings of fact: That the termination of the original agency contract between the plaintiff and the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s Nylie membership and all of his Nylie rights, and that thereafter plaintiff became entitled to no further Nylie payments. That under the Nylie portions of the contract plaintiff was entitled only to commissions on premiums received by defendant from policies written through his personal efforts. The employment of Holliday and Chapman to solicit insurance business in the absence of plaintiff was concealed from defendant. Plaintiff violated the contract by claiming and receiving from defendant Nylie commissions on premiums from policies written by these two men. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-new-york-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1933.