Meyerson v. Hartford Fire Insurance — 39 N.Y.S. 1128

Majority

p. 1128

MEYERSON v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 22. 1896.)

Headnote

Action by Annie Meyerson, as administratrix, etc., against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Defendant moves for reargument, or for leave to appeal to the appellate division. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 329 . Oardozo & Nathan for the motion. Charles Wehlfe, opposed.

The defendant, in its moving papers, asserts that the difference between what is called a “public adjuster” and an “insurance adjuster” is that the former acts for the public, the latter for the companies, and that this circumstance escaped the attention of the court. The distinction was clearly presented at the argument, and was not overlooked in making the deaision. It was not more specially marked, because too apparent to require particular reference. On the principle urged by the defendant, a lawyer who acts only for insurance companies should be termed by the

p. 1129

court an “attorney,” but error might be imputed if it failed to designate an attorney not so specially engaged as a “public attorney.” Such technical nomenclature is hardly subtle enough to require amplification, or call for special comment by way of emphasis to convince litigants that it is understood by the judicial mind. The defendant has not brought itself within the rules entitling it to a reargument (Hand v. Rogers, 16 Misc. Rep. 364 , 38 N. Y. Supp. 2 ), or for leave to appeal to the appellate division (Lynch v. Sauer, 16 Misc. Rep. 362 , 38 N. Y. Supp. 1 ), and the motion must be denied, with $10 costs.

Cases cited

Hand v. Rogers 16 Misc. Rep. 364 N.Y. App. Term 1896-03-27 p. 1129