Sabatino v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabatino v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

95 A.D.2d 752, 464 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18652

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

DecidedJune 28, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.2d 752 (Sabatino v. Paul Revere Life 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

Sabatino v. Paul Revere Life Insurance, 95 A.D.2d 752, 464 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on March 3,1980, is dismissed as superseded by the order of December 8, 1982, without costs. Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on December 8, 1982, which granted the motion by defendant-appellant Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York to reargue and renew, is modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and partial summary judgment granted to the defendant on the issue of the causation of plaintiff’s disability. Defendant-appellant Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York correctly contends that Dr. Stanley Shapiro, the plaintiff’s attending physician, took a consistent position and made the same diagnosis in his letter of September 23,1977, his affidavit of August 17, 1979 and his deposition of September 27, 1979. In all three instances, Dr. Shapiro stated that in his opinion, the accident of July 8, 1977 resulted in an exacerbation of the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition. He never asserted that the July 8 accident was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, the plaintiff, if he otherwise qualifies under the policy, is only entitled to benefits for “Total Disability Due to Sickness” and not for “Total Disability Due to Accident.” Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on March 3,1980, is dismissed as superseded by the order of December 8, 1982, without costs. Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on December 8, 1982, which granted the motion by defendant-appellant Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York to reargue and renew, is modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and partial summary judgment granted to the defendant on the issue of the causation of plaintiff’s disability. Defendant-appellant Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York correctly contends that Dr. Stanley Shapiro, the plaintiff’s attending physician, took a consistent position and made the same diagnosis in his letter of September 23,1977, his affidavit of August 17, 1979 and his deposition of September 27, 1979. In all three instances, Dr. Shapiro stated that in his opinion, the accident of July 8, 1977 resulted in an exacerbation of the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition. He never asserted that the July 8 accident was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, the plaintiff, if he otherwise qualifies under the policy, is only entitled to benefits for “Total Disability Due to Sickness” and not for “Total Disability Due to Accident.” Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 752, 464 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabatino-v-paul-revere-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1983.