Stuyvesant Insurance v. Perfetto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stuyvesant Insurance v. Perfetto

20 A.D.2d 676, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1964·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— In an action for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to a policy issued by plaintiff to the defendant Perfetto, insuring him against liability in connection with an automobile owned by him at the time that the policy was issued, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 14, 1962, as granted the defendant De Louise’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 212 of the former Rules of Civil Practice. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. We express no opinion concerning the validity of an action to determine the question of policy coverage based on ownership by estoppel, if such action be found necessary after the disposition of the pending action to recover damages for personal injury. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [37 Misc 2d 739.]

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

— In an action for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to a policy issued by plaintiff to the defendant Perfetto, insuring him against liability in connection with an automobile owned by him at the time that the policy was issued, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 14, 1962, as granted the defendant De Louise’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 212 of the former Rules of Civil Practice. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. We express no opinion concerning the validity of an action to determine the question of policy coverage based on ownership by estoppel, if such action be found necessary after the disposition of the pending action to recover damages for personal injury. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [37 Misc 2d 739.]

Stuyvesant Insurance v. Perfetto, 20 A.D.2d 676, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

20 A.D.2d 676 (Stuyvesant Insurance v. Perfetto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related