Constable v. Matie
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Balio, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Evidence that a party obtained insurance coverage on a particular vehicle is relevant to establish ownership of that vehicle and such *1006evidence is admissible irrespective of the fact that its admission may be prejudicial (see, Oltarsh v Aetna Ins. Co., 15 NY2d 111, 118; Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461-462, rearg denied 9 NY2d 688). As the Court of Appeals observed in Leotta (supra, at 461-462): "Ordinarily whether a defendant has or has not obtained insurance is irrelevant to the issues, and, since highly prejudicial, therefore, inadmissible.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Leotta v. PlessingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
- Simpson v. . Foundation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Oltarsh v. Aetna InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Bornhurst v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Fulater v. Palmer's Granite Garage, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.