Legal Opinion · Dissent

Constable v. Matie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 29, 1993No. Appeal No. 3Published

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

  1. Leotta v. PlessingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
  2. Simpson v. . Foundation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Oltarsh v. Aetna InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. Bornhurst v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API