Opinion
July, 1932.
Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the affidavit of Rogers was insufficient in law was error. The affidavit complies with section 92 Ins. of the Insurance Law. The complaint, however, may not be dismissed since the proof in the case, which the trial court apparently deemed sufficient with respect to non-payment of the premium for 1926, is too unsatisfactory to warrant its being accepted as sufficiently establishing the fact of non-payment of that premium. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 374-a.) Lazansky, P.J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Amd. by Laws of 1918, chap. 130. — [REP.
Added by Laws of 1928, chap. 532. — [REP.