Birnbaum v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

54 Misc. 2d 72, 281 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1522
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 19, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 Misc. 2d 72 (Birnbaum v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Birnbaum v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 54 Misc. 2d 72, 281 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1522 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Opinion

Oliver D. Williams, J.

This is a motion by defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR 603 severing the causes of action asserted in behalf of plaintiffs Francine Birnbaum and Sol K. Birnbaum on the ground that no triable issue esists between said plaintiffs and defendant.

The defendant insurance carrier has disclaimed coverage under a liability insurance policy as to plaintiff Michael Watman. He is the codefendant with his grandfather Philip Salta, the named insured, in a negligence action brought against them by the plaintiffs Birnbaum.

The policy is a comprehensive personal liability policy insuring the named insured, his spouse, relatives of either residing in his household and any other person under the age of 21 in the care of the insured. It is alleged in the complaint that Michael Watman is a grandson of the named insured, a resident of his household and under the age of 21.

The defendant contends that since there is no privity of contract between it and the plaintiffs Birnbaum, the causes of action asserted on their behalf should be dismissed and severed from the above-entitled action. This contention is without merit. The Legislature gave an independent right to injured persons to proceed directly against the liability insurer when it enacted section 109 of the Insurance Law, forerunner of present section 167 (Lauritano v. American Fire Ins. Co., 3 A D 2d 564, 567). The disclaimer by defendant created a genuine controversy wherein a declaratory judgment to establish defendant’s liability prior to trial of the tort action is proper. (De Abreu v. Lumbermans Mut. Gas. Co., 32 Misc 2d 634; Shukry v. Jolmsson, 17 A D 2d 835.) Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied.

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

Related

Newsom v. Republic Financial Services, Inc.
130 Misc. 2d 780 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Misc. 2d 72, 281 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birnbaum-v-new-amsterdam-casualty-co-nysupct-1966.