Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

275 A.D.2d 613, 713 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 613 (Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance) 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

Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance, 275 A.D.2d 613, 713 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 28, 1998, which granted the motion and cross motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of the marital exclusion set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (g) is without merit (see, Yankelevitz v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 NY2d 928). Nor, given the plain import of Insurance Law § 3420 (g), do we perceive any basis for plaintiffs claim that it was the Legislature’s intention that coverage be provided for interspousal liability. Additionally, any claim against the original broker is [614]*614time-barred, and the broker that procured the current policy was under no duty to obtain such coverage (cf., Gorgone v Regency Agency, 238 AD2d 265). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 28, 1998, which granted the motion and cross motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of the marital exclusion set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (g) is without merit (see, Yankelevitz v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 NY2d 928). Nor, given the plain import of Insurance Law § 3420 (g), do we perceive any basis for plaintiffs claim that it was the Legislature’s intention that coverage be provided for interspousal liability. Additionally, any claim against the original broker is [614]*614time-barred, and the broker that procured the current policy was under no duty to obtain such coverage (cf., Gorgone v Regency Agency, 238 AD2d 265). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 613, 713 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathieu-v-commercial-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack