Society of New York Hospital v. Burstein

22 A.D.2d 768, 253 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2842
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 768 (Society of New York Hospital v. Burstein) 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
Society of New York Hospital v. Burstein, 22 A.D.2d 768, 253 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court, First District, in favor of the third-party plaintiff in the sum of $504.06 after a nonjury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to third-party defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. The issue in this ease is whether the third-party defendant-appellant Associated Hospital Service of New York (AHS) is obligated under its family policy issued to the third-party plaintiff to pay the hospital bill incurred by his wife. AHS denies liability by reason of the following exclusion clause in its policy: article rv —'exclusions 1. Hospital Service shall not be provided for: * * * hospital admissions primarily for diagnostic X-ray or laboratory examinations or other diagnostic studies ”, The third-party plaintiff has failed to establish that the admission was not primarily for diagnostic studies and that the hospitalization accorded his wife was not barred by the exclusion provision. (Whitlatch v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, 149 N. Y. 45; Sagorsky v. Malyon, 4 A D 2d 1016; Klar v. Associated Hosp. Serv. of N. Y., 24 Misc 2d 559; Tasman v. Associated Hosp. Serv. of N. Y., 19 Misc 2d 809.) Under the provisions of CPLR 5522, we should, on the appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury, unless we affirm, grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted. (Malave v. MVAIC, 19 A D 2d 606; Bruno v. Kosnac, 13 A D 2d 650; see former Civ. Prac. Act, § 584, subd. 2; McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, rule 5522, pp. 341-343; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice, par. 5522.02.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Related

DMF Gramercy Enterprises, Inc. v. Lillian Troy 1999 Trust
123 A.D.3d 210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Sarchett v. Blue Shield of California
233 P.2d 267 (California Supreme Court, 1987)
Bacchetta v. Conforti
107 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Marlow v. Tully
100 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Gilbert v. Caldwell
90 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Lockshin v. Blue Cross
434 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1980)
Morningstar v. Insurance Co. of North America
295 F. Supp. 1342 (S.D. New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.2d 768, 253 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/society-of-new-york-hospital-v-burstein-nyappdiv-1964.