Zook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

53 A.D.2d 667, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13406

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

DecidedJune 21, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 667 (Zook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) 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

Zook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 53 A.D.2d 667, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against an insurer, inter alia, to recover damages for its failure to satisfy a judgment obtained against its insured, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 12, 1976, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact findings have been presented for review. The factual issues raised at the trial should have been submitted to the jury for resolution. We note, however, that punitive damages are not warranted upon the facts of this case. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against an insurer, inter alia, to recover damages for its failure to satisfy a judgment obtained against its insured, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 12, 1976, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact findings have been presented for review. The factual issues raised at the trial should have been submitted to the jury for resolution. We note, however, that punitive damages are not warranted upon the facts of this case. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 667, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zook-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack