Ashe v. Genway Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ashe v. Genway Corp.

114 A.D.2d 346, 493 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53034

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 346 (Ashe v. Genway Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashe v. Genway Corp., 114 A.D.2d 346, 493 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a personal injury action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated September 9, 1985, which denied their motion to strike that portion of defendant Genway Corp.’s answer which denied permissive use of the offending vehicle by the individual defendant, Carl Lawrence. (We treat plaintiffs’ notice of appeal as a premature notice of appeal from the order.)

Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether the offending vehicle was operated with the permission of the owner was not determined in the prior proceeding brought to stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim. Accordingly, defendant Genway Corp. is not barred from raising the issue of permissive use in the instant action. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a personal injury action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated September 9, 1985, which denied their motion to strike that portion of defendant Genway Corp.’s answer which denied permissive use of the offending vehicle by the individual defendant, Carl Lawrence. (We treat plaintiffs’ notice of appeal as a premature notice of appeal from the order.)

Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether the offending vehicle was operated with the permission of the owner was not determined in the prior proceeding brought to stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim. Accordingly, defendant Genway Corp. is not barred from raising the issue of permissive use in the instant action. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 346, 493 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashe-v-genway-corp-nyappdiv-1985.