TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kelvin Engineering Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York

Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc. v. American Surety Company of New York, (Action No. 1.) American Surety Company of New York v. Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., (Action No. 2.)

Kelvin Eng'g Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 16 A.D.2d 977 (1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 25, 1962
Citations
16 A.D.2d 9771962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8958

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action (Action No. 1) by the assureds against the insurer upon a policy of liability insurance, to recover damages for fraud and breach of the fiduciary relationship, the defendant insurer appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 18, 1961 upon the verdict of a jury after trial, *978 as is in favor of the plaintiffs Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., and Thomas F. O’Dowd against the defendant. The action (No. 1) was dismissed as to the plaintiff De Maria; and on stipulation Action No. 2 was dismissed against all the defendants. There is no appeal with respect to such dismissals. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the facts; Action No. 1 severed from Action No. 2; and, in Action No. 1, new trial granted between Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., and Thomas E. O’Dowd, plaintiffs, and the American Surety-Company of New York, defendant, with costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ and Hill, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that questions of fact were presented for determination by the jury and, on' this record, it may not be said that the verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list