In re the Rehabilitation of the Empire Mutual Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Rehabilitation of the Empire Mutual Insurance

442 N.E.2d 53, 57 N.Y.2d 833, 455 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3731

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 7, 1982·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

. On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, claimant’s motion to reject the referee’s report granted, report rejected and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to remand to the referee for a hearing to determine whether any portion of the settlement was attributable to economic loss, and, if so, what portion was so attributable. The superintendent’s interpretation of the regulation at issue (11 NYCRR 65.12 [a] [“Other Definitions”, subd (h)]) would make it inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the no-fault statute (Insurance Law, art 18). It therefore must be construed to exclude from no-fault coverage only conduct applied directly to “repairing, servicing or otherwise maintaining motor vehicles”.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

. On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, claimant’s motion to reject the referee’s report granted, report rejected and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to remand to the referee for a hearing to determine whether any portion of the settlement was attributable to economic loss, and, if so, what portion was so attributable. The superintendent’s interpretation of the regulation at issue (11 NYCRR 65.12 [a] [“Other Definitions”, subd (h)]) would make it inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the no-fault statute (Insurance Law, art 18). It therefore must be construed to exclude from no-fault coverage only conduct applied directly to “repairing, servicing or otherwise maintaining motor vehicles”.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

In re the Rehabilitation of the Empire Mutual Insurance, 442 N.E.2d 53, 57 N.Y.2d 833, 455 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3731 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

442 N.E.2d 53 (In re the Rehabilitation of the Empire Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related