Henry v. Russillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry v. Russillo

61 A.D.2d 1039, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10704

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1039 (Henry v. Russillo) 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

Henry v. Russillo, 61 A.D.2d 1039, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award relating to no-fault benefits, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 8, 1976, which confirmed the arbitrator’s award and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate the award. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The arbitrator found that the claimant-respondent crossed a road and was struck by a truck while he was "streaking”, but that he "was not aware that he was fleeing apprehension” (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd. 2, par [c], cl [i]). That finding is supported by the evidence in the record. The running was not proof, per se, of a flight from apprehension, since an essential aspect of "streaking” is running. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award relating to no-fault benefits, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 8, 1976, which confirmed the arbitrator’s award and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate the award. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The arbitrator found that the claimant-respondent crossed a road and was struck by a truck while he was "streaking”, but that he "was not aware that he was fleeing apprehension” (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd. 2, par [c], cl [i]). That finding is supported by the evidence in the record. The running was not proof, per se, of a flight from apprehension, since an essential aspect of "streaking” is running. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1039, 403 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-russillo-nyappdiv-1978.