Legal Opinion

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Garrett

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1968PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarold E. Koreman, J.

The infant defendants, their parents and natural guardians, and the defendant MVAIC move by separate motions for judgment dismissing the complaint as to them on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). The motions are addressed to the complaint in an action for a declaratory judgment seeking to have a policy of automobile liability insurance issued to the defendant Clinton J. Garrett declared null and void, and for a rescission of the contract of insurance. The complaint also seeks a declaration that in the event the court makes such a determination…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. GarrettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
  2. Argenzio v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API