Thomas v. Travelers Insurance

54 A.D.2d 608, 387 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14003
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 608 (Thomas v. Travelers 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
Thomas v. Travelers Insurance, 54 A.D.2d 608, 387 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff-respondent sustained personal injuries when he was struck by an automobile insured by defendant-appellant Allstate. At the time of the accident plaintiff was crossing the highway after leaving a restaurant intending to enter his own parked vehicle insured by defendant-respondent Travelers. From the testimony at the examination before trial it is not clear whether plaintiff had actually touched the door handle of his vehicle before being struck by the vehicle insured by Allstate but he was close to it and it is conceded his intention immediately before the accident was to enter his vehicle. Special Term properly granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to it and granting plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment against Allstate. Under the provisions of the Insurance Law (§ 670 et seq.), and the standard no-fault automobile insurance policy, plaintiffs injuries did not arise out of the "use and operation” of his vehicle (see McConnell v Firemans Fund Amer. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d 676). At the time of [609]*609the accident, plaintiff was a pedestrian and was a covered person entitled to benefits from Allstate, the insurer of the vehicle that struck him (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1, par [a]). Inasmuch as the plaintiff was not engaged in operating his automobile, Allstate’s allegations concerning intoxication do not raise a defense to the action (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 2, par [b]). (Appeal from order of Cattaraugus Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Mahoney, Dillon and Goldman, JJ. [87 Misc 2d 136.]

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

Related

In re the Arbitration between New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance & Hayden
209 A.D.2d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Wrenn v. Young Keum Park
156 Misc. 2d 358 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
Rose v. Allstate Insurance Co.
782 P.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1989)
Rose v. Allstate Insurance Co.
754 P.2d 416 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1987)
Firemen's Insurance v. Bowley
110 Misc. 2d 168 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio
102 Misc. 2d 846 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Fleming v. Allstate Insurance
102 Misc. 2d 994 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio
102 Misc. 2d 842 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1979)
Colon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
64 A.D.2d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.2d 608, 387 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-travelers-insurance-nyappdiv-1976.