Legal Opinion

Furia v. Mellucci

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1989PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Lewis R. Friedman, J.

It is the well-established rule in this State that "whether a defendant has or has not obtained insurance is irrelevant to the issues, and, since highly prejudicial, therefore, inadmissible.” (Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461; Simpson v Foundation Co., 201 NY 479, 490; Van Romapaye Trucking Corp. v Heebner, 85 NYS2d 347, 348; Butera v Donner, 177 Misc 966, 970; cf., CPLR 3101 [f].) This case raises the question of when, despite that rule, proof of insurance may be admitted in a tort case.

Plaintiff was a mason injured in a fall from a scaffold at a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ferris v. . SterlingNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  2. Leotta v. PlessingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
  3. Simpson v. . Foundation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  4. Oltarsh v. Aetna InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. Shutt v. PooleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Furia v. MellucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API