Paul Tishman Co., Inc. v. Carney & Del Guidice, Inc., 316 N.E.2d 875 (NY 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Paul Tishman Co., Inc. v. Carney & Del Guidice, Inc., 316 N.E.2d 875 (NY 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc., Southeastern Aviation (California), Inc., as Agent for Underwriters at Lloyds, London and Certain Insurance Companies v. Bell Helicopters Textron, a Division of Textron, Inc. Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc., and Southeastern Aviation (California), Inc., Agent for Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Certain Insurance Companies v. Bell Helicopters Textron, a Division of Textron, Inc. (2×)
10th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Paul Tishman Co. v. Carney & Del Guidice, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 273 , 320 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y.1971), aff'd 34 N.Y.2d 941 , 359 N.Y.S.2d 561 , 316 N.E.2d 875 (N.Y.1974); Public Service Co. of Okl. v. Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers, 328 F.Supp. 14 (N.D.Okla.1971), and Employers' Fire Ins.
discussed Cited "see" Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopters Textron (2×)
10th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Paul Tishman Co. v. Carney & Del Guidice, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 273 , 320 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y.1971), aff'd 34 N.Y.2d 941 , 359 N.Y.S.2d 561 , 316 N.E.2d 875 (N.Y.1974); Public Service Co. of Okl. v. Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers, 328 F.Supp. 14 (N.D.Okla.1971), and Employers’ Fire Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul Tishman Company, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Carney & Del Guidice, Inc., Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 11, 1974.
316 N.E.2d 875
Douglas A. Boeckmann for appellant., Milton B. Pfeffer for respondent.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Rabin Concur in Memorandum Judge Stevens Taking No Part.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum. In agreeing with the majority at the Appellate Division, we would merely add that defendant’s insurable interest under the fire insurance policies here in question was limited to its property interest in the building under construction — i.e., the tools, labor and material furnished or owned by the defendant: Since no part of the damages alleged by the[*943] plaintiff in this litigation was for destruction of any property owned or furnished by the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant was a coinsured under the terms of the policy with respect to the loss caused by the fire.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Rabin concur in memorandum; Judge .Stevens taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.