Warner v. Prudential Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warner v. Prudential Insurance

27 A.D.2d 980, 278 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485

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

DecidedApril 6, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 980 (Warner v. Prudential 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

Warner v. Prudential Insurance, 27 A.D.2d 980, 278 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The evidence presented a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury as to whether defendant had waived the right to require fulfillment of the reinstatement procedure provided in the policy (see 30 N. Y. Jur., Insurance, § 848). Furthermore, it was error to foreclose examination of a witness called by plaintiff who might have supplied the foundation necessary for the introduction into evidence of the .exhibits marked 17 and 18 for identification. The trial court should not have [981]*981speculated as to the testimony which might have been elicited from the trial counsel for respondent as to these two exhibits. (Appeal from judgment and order of Herkimer Trial Term dismissing complaint on the merits in an action on a life insurance policy. Order granted motion for a nonsuit.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

—Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The evidence presented a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury as to whether defendant had waived the right to require fulfillment of the reinstatement procedure provided in the policy (see 30 N. Y. Jur., Insurance, § 848). Furthermore, it was error to foreclose examination of a witness called by plaintiff who might have supplied the foundation necessary for the introduction into evidence of the .exhibits marked 17 and 18 for identification. The trial court should not have [981]*981speculated as to the testimony which might have been elicited from the trial counsel for respondent as to these two exhibits. (Appeal from judgment and order of Herkimer Trial Term dismissing complaint on the merits in an action on a life insurance policy. Order granted motion for a nonsuit.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 980, 278 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-prudential-insurance-nyappdiv-1967.