
    Harry Ertischek, Appellant, v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company of Manchester, Respondent.
    
      Ertischeh v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. of Manchester, 179 App. Div. 827, affirmed.
    (Argued January 22, 1920;
    decided February 24, 1920.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 26, 1917, reversing a determination of the Appellate Term which reversed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of defendant and affirming said Municipal Court judgment. The action was to recover upon a policy of fire insurance. The material defense was that the assured kept, used and allowed benzine on the insured premises without the permission of the company, in violation of the clause of the standard policy which provided that “ This entire policy, unless otherwise provided, by agreement endorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void * * * if (any usage or custom of trade or manufacture to the contrary notwithstanding) there be kept, used or allowed on the above described premises, benzine,” etc..
    
      David Goldstein for appellant.
    
      Frederic C. Pitcher and Walter PL. Poliak for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Elkus, JJ.  