From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dreiblatt v. Taylor

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 9, 1947
188 Misc. 199 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)

Summary

In Dreiblatt v. Taylor, 188 Misc. 199, 67 N.Y.S.2d 378, the court held that a vehicle watched from an apartment window was unattended.

Summary of this case from Texas-Oklahoma Express, Inc. v. United States

Opinion

January 9, 1947.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of The Bronx, DELAGI, J.

J. Roger Carroll for appellant.

Isidor Enselman and Louis Solomon for respondents.



MEMORANDUM


Under the circumstances disclosed by the record here, the evidence that plaintiffs' automobile was watched from the front window of an apartment on the first floor of an apartment house before which it was parked, does not show attendance of the vehicle within the intent of the policy excluding "loss of the property insured herein from road vehicles of every description when such vehicles are left unattended." The attendant, assuming the watcher to be such, was not shown to be actually within or upon the automobile, or so near thereto as to be able to observe a theft of the contents. The term "unattended" has a connotation of lack of due diligence or protection which would exclude coverage. (See Kinscherf Co., Inc., v. St. Paul F. M. Ins. Co., 234 A.D. 385.)

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendant dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs.

HAMMER, SHIENTAG and HECHT, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Dreiblatt v. Taylor

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 9, 1947
188 Misc. 199 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)

In Dreiblatt v. Taylor, 188 Misc. 199, 67 N.Y.S.2d 378, the court held that a vehicle watched from an apartment window was unattended.

Summary of this case from Texas-Oklahoma Express, Inc. v. United States

In Dreiblatt v. Taylor, 188 Misc. 199, 67 N.Y. So.2d 378, which was an action on a policy with an exception clause similar to that in the Kinscherf case, the court adhered to that decision.

Summary of this case from Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

In Drieblatt v. Taylor (188 Misc. 199, 200), it was held that the fact that a locked automobile was being watched from a first-floor window of an adjacent building did not prove attendance within the terms of an insurance policy excluding "loss of the property insured herein from road vehicles of every description when such vehicles are left unattended".

Summary of this case from Stephens v. Katz Parking System
Case details for

Dreiblatt v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:SADIE DREIBLATT et al., Respondents, v. LEONARD J. TAYLOR, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 9, 1947

Citations

188 Misc. 199 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)
67 N.Y.S.2d 378

Citing Cases

JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Id. The policy in Dreiblatt v. Taylor, 188 Misc. 199, 67 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1947), was similar to a jeweler's…

Texas-Oklahoma Express, Inc. v. United States

The definition usually given requires that someone be in the car or in the immediate vicinity of the car who…