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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 442 N.E.2d 53 (In re the Rehabilitation of the Empire Mutual Insurance) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 N.E.2d 53, 57 N.Y.2d 833, 455 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-rehabilitation-of-the-empire-mutual-insurance-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack