Faro v. Transamerica Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faro v. Transamerica Insurance

78 A.D.2d 538, 432 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12858

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 538 (Faro v. Transamerica Insurance) 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

Faro v. Transamerica Insurance, 78 A.D.2d 538, 432 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitrator’s award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 7, 1980, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application granted, and award confirmed. Petitioner was injured while repairing a street light; he was standing in the bucket of a vehicle known as a "cherry picker” or "bucket truck”. Although petitioner’s claim for no-fault benefits was initially denied by the respondent, he demanded arbitration of his claim and the arbitrator ruled in his favor. Special Term denied confirmation of the award, however, concluding that the petitioner’s injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1; Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 AD2d 1028, affd 44 NY2d 881). Without deciding whether the arbitrator’s determination was erroneous as a matter of law, we hold that the award was not so irrational as to warrant vacatur (see Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitrator’s award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 7, 1980, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application granted, and award confirmed. Petitioner was injured while repairing a street light; he was standing in the bucket of a vehicle known as a "cherry picker” or "bucket truck”. Although petitioner’s claim for no-fault benefits was initially denied by the respondent, he demanded arbitration of his claim and the arbitrator ruled in his favor. Special Term denied confirmation of the award, however, concluding that the petitioner’s injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1; Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 AD2d 1028, affd 44 NY2d 881). Without deciding whether the arbitrator’s determination was erroneous as a matter of law, we hold that the award was not so irrational as to warrant vacatur (see Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 538, 432 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faro-v-transamerica-insurance-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack