Case Name: Edwin Mortenson et al., Respondents, v. Noah Chook, Doing Business as East End Cleaners, East End Dry Cleaners, Ltd. et al., Defendants, and Fulton Fire Insurance Company of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-06-30
Citations: 19 Misc. 2d 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin Mortenson et al., Respondents, v. Noah Chook, Doing Business as East End Cleaners, East End Dry Cleaners, Ltd. et al., Defendants, and Fulton Fire Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Edwin Mortenson et al., Respondents, v. Noah Chook, Doing Business as East End Cleaners, East End Dry Cleaners, Ltd. et al., Defendants, and Fulton Fire Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
June 30, 1959.
George I. Janow for appellant.
George H. Hamilton for Noah Chook, respondent.
Jules B. St. Germain for Edwin Mortenson, respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs' property was not covered, at the time of its loss by the insurance policy issued by the defendant Fulton Fire Insurance Company to the defendants Chook and East End Dry Cleaners, Ltd. (Atlantic Fruit Co. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 251 N. Y. 98; 13 A. L. R. 2d 718, § 4; see, also, Rubin v. East|& West Ins. Co., 72 N. Y. S. 2d 885.)
The judgment in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Fulton Fire Insurance Company should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed.
The judgment in favor of defendants Noah Chook and East End Dry Cleaners, Ltd. against the defendant Fulton Fire Insur anee Company on their cross complaint should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts and cross complaint dismissed, without costs.
Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.