Van Norden v. Kliternick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Norden v. Kliternick

181 A.D.2d 535, 581 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 535 (Van Norden v. Kliternick) 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

Van Norden v. Kliternick, 181 A.D.2d 535, 581 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 12, 1990, which declared [536]*536that third-party defendant is not obligated to defend or indemnify third-party plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at trial supports the finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was being used to carry persons for a fee, an occurrence clearly within the exclusionary clause relied on by third-party defendant (see, Government Employees Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863). The "public or livery conveyance” exclusion herein differs from the "limited, special use” to which such an exclusion would not apply (compare, American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v Pardo, 32 AD2d 536, 537). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 12, 1990, which declared [536]*536that third-party defendant is not obligated to defend or indemnify third-party plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at trial supports the finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was being used to carry persons for a fee, an occurrence clearly within the exclusionary clause relied on by third-party defendant (see, Government Employees Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863). The "public or livery conveyance” exclusion herein differs from the "limited, special use” to which such an exclusion would not apply (compare, American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v Pardo, 32 AD2d 536, 537). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 535, 581 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-norden-v-kliternick-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack