Legal Opinion
Crilley v. Allstate Insurance
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided January 3, 1963PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtCharles J. Vallone, J.
This is a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The pertinent facts are not in dispute and the question to be determined is one of law. Concisely stated, the pertinent facts are as follows: The plaintiff’s spouse, while a passenger in her husband’s vehicle, suffered injuries and brought an action against her husband to recover damages. The husband, in his moving affidavit, page 4, states: ‘ ‘ Plaintiff concedes that Grace Crilley has at all times been his spouse ”. At the time of the accident, the husband was the named insured in a *372po…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Fuchs v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. CassinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992