New York Court of Appeals, 1968

Simpson v. Loehmann

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 11, 1968

21 N.Y.2d 990; 238 N.E.2d 319; 290 N.Y.S.2d 914; 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1468

Cases that cite this one

56 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Minichiello v. Rosenberg (2d Cir. 1968)
William A. Robinson v. O. F. Shearer & Sons, Inc. And Royal Globe Insurance Companies (3d Cir. 1970)
Rush v. Savchuk (Supreme Court of the United States 1980)
Greyhound Corporation v. Heitner (Del. 1976)
Barrios v. Dade County of State of Florida (District Court, S.D. New York 1970)
Varady v. Margolis (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
O'CONNOR v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1977)
Hart v. Cote (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
Savchuk v. Rush (Minn. 1976)
Seafood Imports, Inc. v. A. J. Cunningham Packing Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
Sykes v. Beal (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1975)
Ryer v. Harrisburg Kohl Bros. (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1970)
Farrell v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. (2d Cir. 1969)
Ladson v. Kibble (District Court, S.D. New York 1969)
Farrell v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. (2d Cir. 1969)
Barker v. Smith (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
Rubin v. Dondysh (Civil Court of the City of New York 1990)
Rudetsky v. O'DOWD (District Court, E.D. New York 1987)
Saraceno v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
Ranz v. Sposato (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Holzsager v. Valley Hospital (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
Holzsager v. Valley Hospital (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Farber (New York Supreme Court 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Motion for reargument denied in the following memorandum: A motion for reargument is not an appropriate vehicle for raising new questions, such as those now urged upon us, which were not previously advanced either in this court or in the courts below. (See, e.g., Mississippi Shipbuilding Corp. v. Lever Bros. Co., 237 N. Y. 565; Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck, 293 N. Y. 768; see, also, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 628, 69A-696.) Indeed, the appellant now suggests a meaning and interpretation of the insurance policy (the subject of the attachment) which is inconsistent with that subscribed to and acquiesced in by him on the appeal proper and on which the case has heretofore been considered and decided. It would serve no useful purpose for us to entertain at this juncture arguments addressed to details relating to the coverage or noncoverage of that policy of insurance now pressed upon us for the first time.

Further, the appellant’s argument based on the impact of CPLR 320 (subd. [c]), also asserted for the first time, fails to take account of the explicit statement in the court’s opinion (21 N Y 2d 305, 310) that “ neither the Seider decision [17 N Y 2d 111] nor the present one purports to expand the basis for in personam jurisdiction in view of the fact that the recovery is *991necessarily limited to the value of the asset attached, that is, the liability insurance policy. For the purpose of pending litigation, which looks to an ultimate judgment and recovery, such value is its face amount and not some abstract or hypothetical value.” This, it is hardly necessary to add, means that there may not be any recovery against the defendant in this sort of case in an amount greater than the face value of such insurance policy even though he proceeds with the defense on the merits. Consideration of CPLR 320 (subd. [c]) and its effect in other types of action begun by attachment must, of course, await future cases.

Motion for reargument and for a stay denied in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.