From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A. Charm v. St. Paul F. Marine Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 25, 1968
56 Misc. 2d 574 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)

Opinion

January 25, 1968

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, ALLEN M. MYERS, J.

Tell, Cheser, Werner Breitbart ( Solomon M. Cheser and Benjamin L. Tell of counsel), for appellants.

Miller Seeger ( Israel G. Seeger of counsel), for respondents.


The loss of plaintiffs' property was from an automobile which at the time the loss occurred did not have "actually in or upon such vehicle" the designated custodian. Hence defendants are not liable, because the actual loss occurred under circumstances falling squarely within the exclusory clause. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — STREIT, J.P., GOLD and HOFSTADTER, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

A. Charm v. St. Paul F. Marine Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 25, 1968
56 Misc. 2d 574 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
Case details for

A. Charm v. St. Paul F. Marine Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN CHARM CORPORATION et al., Respondents, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 25, 1968

Citations

56 Misc. 2d 574 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
289 N.Y.S.2d 383

Citing Cases

E.M.M.I., Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.

vehicle, or absent from the vehicle for only a short period of time. See, e.g., Williams v. FallaizeIns.…

Western Express v. Lexington in

riod of time. See, e.g., Williams v. Fallaize Ins. Agency, Inc., 220 Ga. App. 411, 469 S.E.2d 752 (Ga.Ct.App.…