Kreitzman v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
Opinion of the Court
The basis of plaintiff’s action for fraud is that he was damaged by being deprived of his cause of action for personal injuries against Jessie S. Moon, defendant’s assured. In order for plaintiff to recover, it was necessary for him to establish that he originally had a valid claim against defendant’s assured. Plaintiff ', was injured in the State of Maryland. In the absence of evidence as to the laws of Maryland, it is presumed that the common law of that State is the same as the common law of this State. Under
This testimony from a disinterested witness was not contradicted; it was not shown to be improbable, nor was its truthfulness or accuracy open to reasonable doubt upon all the evidence. In the circumstances, the only conclusion that could be drawn reasonably is that at the time of the accident Sweeney was operating the car for his own business and pleasure and that the defendant’s assured was not responsible for the operation of the car. (Cherwien v. Geiter, supra; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 N. Y. 368, 372.) In this respect the verdict was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The judgment should, accordingly, be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.