281 A.D. 1007 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1953
Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents and votes for reversal in the following memorandum: I think that on the face of this policy, John Stopera, or any other layman under similar circumstances, could consider that he was a “ named insured ”. This is so, particularly by reason of item 1 of the contract, the line which reads “ The named insured is Housewife (Husband Chef, Faxton Hospital) ” and item 5 which reads “The purposes for which the automobile is to be used are Pleasure and to work for Husband.” That the quoted words