General

Yetta Sagorsky et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of I. S. Sagorsky & Son, Respondents, v. B. H. Malyon, as One of the Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing Policy No. 49/30726, Appellant

283 A.D. 859·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1954·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Yetta Sagorsky et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of I. S. Sagorsky & Son, Respondents, v. B. H. Malyon, as One of the Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing Policy No. 49/30726, Appellant. [MAJORITY] — Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant; and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the appellant dismissing the complaint herein, with costs. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that at the time of the theft there was not “ actually in or upon ” the vehicle in question “ a person whose sole duty it was to attend the vehicle ”. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ.; Cohn and Botein, J J., dissent and vote to affirm.