Steen v. Kloss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steen v. Kloss

20 A.D.2d 663, 246 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 663 (Steen v. Kloss) 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

Steen v. Kloss, 20 A.D.2d 663, 246 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for judgment declaring the rights of the respective parties, the defendant Maryland Casualty Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 17, 1962 upon the decision-opinion of a Special Referee after trial before him, which, inter alia, adjudged that the automobile liability insurance policy issued by said defendant was still in effect and that it was obligated to defend the defendant Kloss, the insured under the policy, in an action against him by the plaintiff as a result of a collision between their motor vehicles. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the evidence disclosed by this record is insufficient to determine: (a) when, if ever, the defendant Kloss received plaintiff’s attorney’s letter of July 5, 1961; (b) whether the circumstances of the accident itself were sufficient to require notice to the defendant insurance carrier; [664]*664(e) whether Riverside Agency, an insurance brokerage agency, was authorized to receive notice for the defendant insurance carrier; and (d) whether written or oral notice was given. It appears that evidence as to these factual issues can be produced at a new trial and, therefore, in the interest of justice a new trial is granted. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ,. Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for judgment declaring the rights of the respective parties, the defendant Maryland Casualty Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 17, 1962 upon the decision-opinion of a Special Referee after trial before him, which, inter alia, adjudged that the automobile liability insurance policy issued by said defendant was still in effect and that it was obligated to defend the defendant Kloss, the insured under the policy, in an action against him by the plaintiff as a result of a collision between their motor vehicles. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the evidence disclosed by this record is insufficient to determine: (a) when, if ever, the defendant Kloss received plaintiff’s attorney’s letter of July 5, 1961; (b) whether the circumstances of the accident itself were sufficient to require notice to the defendant insurance carrier; [664]*664(e) whether Riverside Agency, an insurance brokerage agency, was authorized to receive notice for the defendant insurance carrier; and (d) whether written or oral notice was given. It appears that evidence as to these factual issues can be produced at a new trial and, therefore, in the interest of justice a new trial is granted. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ,. Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 663, 246 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steen-v-kloss-nyappdiv-1964.