Taylor v. Fazio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Fazio

291 A.D.2d 293, 737 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1758

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 293 (Taylor v. Fazio) 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

Taylor v. Fazio, 291 A.D.2d 293, 737 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 15, 2001, which granted defendant Kemper Insurance Company’s motion to sever plaintiffs no-fault cause of action against it from the negligence cause of action against the remaining defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in severing the cause of action for no-fault benefits against defendant Kemper Insurance Company from the negligence cause of action asserted against its codefendants. Without such severance, the issue of insurance would have been injected into the negligence case, an inherently prejudicial and thus prudently avoided circumstance (see, Krieger v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 66 AD2d 1025). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 15, 2001, which granted defendant Kemper Insurance Company’s motion to sever plaintiffs no-fault cause of action against it from the negligence cause of action against the remaining defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in severing the cause of action for no-fault benefits against defendant Kemper Insurance Company from the negligence cause of action asserted against its codefendants. Without such severance, the issue of insurance would have been injected into the negligence case, an inherently prejudicial and thus prudently avoided circumstance (see, Krieger v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 66 AD2d 1025). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 293, 737 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-fazio-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack