Garrett v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garrett v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

262 A.D.2d 1001, 691 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7193

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 1001 (Garrett v. American Manufacturers Mutual 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

Garrett v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 1001, 691 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiffs 25-year-old daughter may be deemed a resident of plaintiffs household for purposes of the supplementary uninsured motorists (SUM) endorsement of plaintiffs policy of automobile insurance (see, Kradjian v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 206 AD2d 801). Although it is undisputed that plaintiffs daughter resided primarily with her father, there is conflicting evidence whether she also resided with plaintiff within the meaning of the SUM endorsement (see, Nationwide Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 181 AD2d 1022). We reject defendant’s contention that the daughter’s age is a determinative factor inasmuch as the policy has no age restrictions. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, VanStrydonck, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiffs 25-year-old daughter may be deemed a resident of plaintiffs household for purposes of the supplementary uninsured motorists (SUM) endorsement of plaintiffs policy of automobile insurance (see, Kradjian v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 206 AD2d 801). Although it is undisputed that plaintiffs daughter resided primarily with her father, there is conflicting evidence whether she also resided with plaintiff within the meaning of the SUM endorsement (see, Nationwide Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 181 AD2d 1022). We reject defendant’s contention that the daughter’s age is a determinative factor inasmuch as the policy has no age restrictions. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, VanStrydonck, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 1001, 691 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-american-manufacturers-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack