Tenenbaum v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tenenbaum v. Hartford Fire Insurance

229 A.D. 805

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

DecidedMay 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D. 805 (Tenenbaum v. Hartford Fire 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

Tenenbaum v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 229 A.D. 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The record herein did not warrant the submission to the jury of any issue of fact respecting whether or not the fire was of an incendiary origin or whether or not the plaintiff was a party to a conspiracy to procure such an incendiary fire. The court further erred in allowing such portions of defendants’ Exhibit TTTTT in evidence, in so far as that exhibit contained the witness Bercu’s conclusions as to whether items were or were not fictitious. Likewise, it was error to receive in evidence testimony of the acts of the various employees of the Point Green Shirt Company without proof of responsibility therefor on the part of the plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The record herein did not warrant the submission to the jury of any issue of fact respecting whether or not the fire was of an incendiary origin or whether or not the plaintiff was a party to a conspiracy to procure such an incendiary fire. The court further erred in allowing such portions of defendants’ Exhibit TTTTT in evidence, in so far as that exhibit contained the witness Bercu’s conclusions as to whether items were or were not fictitious. Likewise, it was error to receive in evidence testimony of the acts of the various employees of the Point Green Shirt Company without proof of responsibility therefor on the part of the plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenenbaum-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1930.