Legal Opinion

Eisner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1988PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

William J. Davis, J.

The motion by plaintiffs Eisner and Gonzales, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, is denied.

*745The cross motion by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, dismissing the complaint herein, is granted.

The cross motion by Theodore Associates, Inc., is granted.

The cross motion by Lea Polk, for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action, is granted.

Plaintiff Eisner received an insurance policy from Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, in which Stuart Eisner is named as the insured. The definition for the term "insured” on the policy of insurance…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Government Employees Insurance v. KliglerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Caporino v. Travelers InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Harvey v. . CherryNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  4. Designcraft Jewel Industries, Inc. v. Rampart Brokerage Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  5. Woodbury v. SchroederCity of New York Municipal Court · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bellnier v. BellnierAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  2. Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API