Strauss v. Bennett Brothers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strauss v. Bennett Brothers Corp.

27 A.D.2d 528, 275 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 528 (Strauss v. Bennett Brothers Corp.) 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

Strauss v. Bennett Brothers Corp., 27 A.D.2d 528, 275 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 30, 1965, denying the third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for a severance of the third-party action, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to said appellant, and the motion therefor granted. The third-party complaint is grounded on an insurance policy allegedly indemnifying the third-party plaintiff against the tort claim underlying the complaint. Plaintiff’s action will be tried before a jury. The fact of insurance relative to the occurrence complained of by plaintiff will be prejudicial as a matter of law as to -the third-party defendant-appellant. (Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603; Rauch v. Berlin, 24 A D 2d 976.) Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered August 30, 1965, denying the third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for a severance of the third-party action, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to said appellant, and the motion therefor granted. The third-party complaint is grounded on an insurance policy allegedly indemnifying the third-party plaintiff against the tort claim underlying the complaint. Plaintiff’s action will be tried before a jury. The fact of insurance relative to the occurrence complained of by plaintiff will be prejudicial as a matter of law as to -the third-party defendant-appellant. (Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603; Rauch v. Berlin, 24 A D 2d 976.) Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 528, 275 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strauss-v-bennett-brothers-corp-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack