Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

98 A.D.2d 986, 470 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21331

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 1983·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that plaintiff, on the evidence submitted on this motion for summary judgment, has no cause of action for malicious prosecution. Nevertheless, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, a cause of action against defendant for improperly inducing the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to section 332 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 NY2d 397, 405-406). Obviously, the purpose of section 332 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is to protect the public from uninsured motorists who fail to satisfy judgments resulting from personal injury or property damage. The section was not designed to assist the defendant insurance company to recover from its insured money paid by mistake. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mastrella, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that plaintiff, on the evidence submitted on this motion for summary judgment, has no cause of action for malicious prosecution. Nevertheless, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, a cause of action against defendant for improperly inducing the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to section 332 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 NY2d 397, 405-406). Obviously, the purpose of section 332 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is to protect the public from uninsured motorists who fail to satisfy judgments resulting from personal injury or property damage. The section was not designed to assist the defendant insurance company to recover from its insured money paid by mistake. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mastrella, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 98 A.D.2d 986, 470 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

98 A.D.2d 986 (Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related