Warzinski v. Travelers Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warzinski v. Travelers Insurance

182 A.D.2d 1125, 583 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1125 (Warzinski 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

Warzinski v. Travelers Insurance, 182 A.D.2d 1125, 583 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with Supreme Court that, as of the date of the accident, the automobile had been transferred by the insured and was owned by plaintiff. We disagree, however, that plaintiff was entitled to coverage under the automobile liability policy issued by defendant. That policy was issued to the former owner. Coverage arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of the automobile terminated when the former owner transferred the automobile to plaintiff (see, Tyrnauer v Travelers Ins. Co., 15 AD2d 293, 296, affd 13 NY2d 613; Mason v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD2d 138). Thus, we grant judgment declaring that plaintiff is not an insured under the policy of insurance issued by Travelers Insurance Company. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Fee-man, Jr., J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with Supreme Court that, as of the date of the accident, the automobile had been transferred by the insured and was owned by plaintiff. We disagree, however, that plaintiff was entitled to coverage under the automobile liability policy issued by defendant. That policy was issued to the former owner. Coverage arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of the automobile terminated when the former owner transferred the automobile to plaintiff (see, Tyrnauer v Travelers Ins. Co., 15 AD2d 293, 296, affd 13 NY2d 613; Mason v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD2d 138). Thus, we grant judgment declaring that plaintiff is not an insured under the policy of insurance issued by Travelers Insurance Company. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Fee-man, Jr., J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1125, 583 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warzinski-v-travelers-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack