Gaston v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY

901 N.E.2d 743, 11 N.Y.3d 866
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 16, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 901 N.E.2d 743 (Gaston v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gaston v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, 901 N.E.2d 743, 11 N.Y.3d 866 (N.Y. 2008).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and, as so modified, affirmed.

In this Insurance Law § 3420 action, defendant insurer should not have been collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of whether the car that collided with the bus in which the injured plaintiffs were traveling was insured on the date of the accident. Three prior judgments involving different parties’ claims arising from the same bus accident were submitted to the court. The plaintiffs * proffered two default judgments that resolved the coverage issue against the insurer while the insurer demonstrated that the same coverage question had been adjudicated in a third proceeding resulting in a judgment in the insurer’s favor. In light of these conflicting judgments on the same issue, application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel was *868 not warranted (see Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 29 [4]). Since plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition to the insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment were not addressed by either of the courts below, we decline to grant the insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order modified, etc.

*

Plaintiff Nicole Jean died during the pendency of this appeal. Following proceedings in Surrogate’s Court, Supreme Court substituted Stephanie Jean, the administratrix of her estate, as a plaintiff and amended the caption to reflect both the substitution and the fact that the former infant plaintiff, Saramilia Gaston, is now over the age of 18.

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

Related

Headley v. New York City Transit Authority
100 A.D.3d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Magic Recovery Medical & Surgical Supply Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
27 Misc. 3d 67 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Creinis v. Hanover Insurance
59 A.D.3d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
901 N.E.2d 743, 11 N.Y.3d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaston-v-american-transit-insurance-company-ny-2008.