Krieger v. Insurance Co. of North America

66 A.D.2d 1025, 411 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14399
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 66 A.D.2d 1025 (Krieger v. Insurance Co. of North America) 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
Krieger v. Insurance Co. of North America, 66 A.D.2d 1025, 411 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: While riding a motorcycle plaintiff Krieger was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by defendant Grasso and insured by defendant Insurance Company of North America (INA). As a result of the accident, INA paid first-party benefits to plaintiff pursuant to the New York Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act (commonly, "No-Fault”). Certain of plaintiff’s claims for first-party benefits, however, were later rejected. Plaintiff then brought this action against Grasso for damages for personal injuries and against INA for payment of additional first-party benefits. Both defendants promptly moved for severance and separate trials of the two causes of action, asserting that [1026]*1026there were no common issues and that a single trial would unduly prejudice their rights. Special Term denied the motion. Claims should be severed where they are so unrelated that a single trial would result in undue prejudice to a party (Siegel, New York Practice [1978], § 129, p 159). Although it is probably true that most jurors are aware that defendants in negligence cases are insured, it remains a rule in New York that evidence of insurance is usually irrelevant and prejudicial (Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 169, p 137). The cause of action against Grasso involves the issue of negligence. The cause of action against INA involves no-fault insurance payments. The injection of the issue of insurance in the negligence case, particularly where plaintiff is demanding damages well in excess of defendant Grasso’s liability coverage, is inherently prejudicial and should be avoided (Kelly v Yannotti, 4 NY2d 603; McDavid v Gunnigle, 50 AD2d 737; Strauss v Bennet Bros. Corp., 27 AD2d 528). (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—severance.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

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

Related

Earley v. Salim
2025 NY Slip Op 51109(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2025)
Spectra Audio Research, Inc. v. Chon
62 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Augello v. Koenig-Rivkin
56 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Southworth v. Macko
294 A.D.2d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Taylor v. Fazio
291 A.D.2d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Finning v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
281 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
CNA Insurance v. Carl R. Cacioppo Electrical Contractors, Inc.
206 A.D.2d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Harris v. Manos
181 A.D.2d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Redanz v. Kuntz
99 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Pierce v. International Harvester Co.
65 A.D.2d 254 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.2d 1025, 411 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krieger-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyappdiv-1978.