Byron v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byron v. Allen

26 A.D.2d 857, 274 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 857 (Byron v. Allen) 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

Byron v. Allen, 26 A.D.2d 857, 274 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal (1) from an order of the County Court of Cortland County which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the motion being treated as an application for summary judgment; and (2) from the judgment entered [858]*858thereon. In negligence actions stemming from an automobile accident, judgments were entered upon verdicts against the appellant in the case before us; appeals were taken and the usual undertaking on appeal was executed and filed by the automobile liability insurance carrier concerned, which has now instigated the present action in its insured’s name, against its insured’s driver, claiming authority so to do by reason of its alleged subrogation to the rights of the insured. The County Court, in its decision upon the motion, noted that the insurer’s attorneys had been afforded an opportunity to produce the contract of insurance but failed to do so. Appellant concedes, however, that the affidavit served in answer to the motion correctly states the policy provision as entitling the insurer to subrogation “in the event any payment raider the said policy should be forthcoming”. On this appeal, it is raged on behalf of the carrier merely that the undertaking on appeal was “ tantamount ” to payment. No discussion seems necessary to support the thesis that the undertaking is not a “payment”, and was given, in fact, to avoid payment. The complaint fails to allege any “payment”. It is clear that the judgment creditors have received no “payment”, the purpose of the undertaking and appeal being, on the contrary, to resist payment; that appellant insured has not been released from liability under the judgments; and that, as also found by the County Court, the action was brought in appellant’s name without his authority. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal (1) from an order of the County Court of Cortland County which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the motion being treated as an application for summary judgment; and (2) from the judgment entered [858]*858thereon. In negligence actions stemming from an automobile accident, judgments were entered upon verdicts against the appellant in the case before us; appeals were taken and the usual undertaking on appeal was executed and filed by the automobile liability insurance carrier concerned, which has now instigated the present action in its insured’s name, against its insured’s driver, claiming authority so to do by reason of its alleged subrogation to the rights of the insured. The County Court, in its decision upon the motion, noted that the insurer’s attorneys had been afforded an opportunity to produce the contract of insurance but failed to do so. Appellant concedes, however, that the affidavit served in answer to the motion correctly states the policy provision as entitling the insurer to subrogation “in the event any payment raider the said policy should be forthcoming”. On this appeal, it is raged on behalf of the carrier merely that the undertaking on appeal was “ tantamount ” to payment. No discussion seems necessary to support the thesis that the undertaking is not a “payment”, and was given, in fact, to avoid payment. The complaint fails to allege any “payment”. It is clear that the judgment creditors have received no “payment”, the purpose of the undertaking and appeal being, on the contrary, to resist payment; that appellant insured has not been released from liability under the judgments; and that, as also found by the County Court, the action was brought in appellant’s name without his authority. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 857, 274 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byron-v-allen-nyappdiv-1966.