IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Wynter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Wynter

74 A.D.3d 637, 903 N.Y.S.2d 393

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

DecidedJune 22, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 637 (IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Wynter) 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

IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Wynter, 74 A.D.3d 637, 903 N.Y.S.2d 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[638]*638Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie S. Lowenstein, Special Referee), entered on or about February 26, 2010, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

The record establishes that, at the time of the accident respondent was a passenger in an uninsured motor vehicle. He and the driver of the vehicle, a fellow employee, were on their way to a store where the driver intended to carry out a personal errand unrelated to work. Since respondent and the driver were not acting within the scope of their employment, workers’ compensation, if it is a remedy, is not respondent’s exclusive remedy (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147, 150 [2001]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[638]*638Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie S. Lowenstein, Special Referee), entered on or about February 26, 2010, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

The record establishes that, at the time of the accident respondent was a passenger in an uninsured motor vehicle. He and the driver of the vehicle, a fellow employee, were on their way to a store where the driver intended to carry out a personal errand unrelated to work. Since respondent and the driver were not acting within the scope of their employment, workers’ compensation, if it is a remedy, is not respondent’s exclusive remedy (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147, 150 [2001]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 637, 903 N.Y.S.2d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ids-property-casualty-insurance-v-wynter-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack