Locascio v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1987 |
| Citation | 511 N.Y.S.2d 934,127 A.D.2d 746 |
| Parties | Alan V. LOCASCIO, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kressel, Rothlein & Roth, Massapequa (David Roth, of counsel), for appellant.
Short & Billy, New York City (Michael Billy, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, NIEHOFF and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated October 22, 1985, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On October 20, 1984, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by an unknown man. The plaintiff was not injured as a result of the collision. However, after both the plaintiff and the other driver exited their respective vehicles, the plaintiff was shot with a handgun by the other driver who then fled and was never found. The plaintiff sought first-party benefits and uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to a policy issued by the defendant insurer. When the defendant disclaimed, the plaintiff instituted this action which Special Term dismissed upon the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff was not entitled to first-party benefits because his injuries did not arise from the "use or operation" of the automobile (see, Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 A.D.2d 1004, 420 N.Y.S.2d 298, quoting from Insurance Law former § 671[2], [now § 5102(b) ] ). His claim for benefits under the uninsured motorist endorsement was also properly denied because his injuries were not caused by an accident (see, McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 16 A.D.2d 35, 224 N.Y.S.2d 909, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 922, 238 N.Y.S.2d 101, 188 N.E.2d 405) and the injuries did not arise from the physical contact between the vehicles (see, Matter of Smith [Great Amer. Ins. Co.], 29 N.Y.2d 116, 324 N.Y.S.2d 15, 272 N.E.2d 528).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roller v. Stonewall Ins. Co.
...definition, be an accident. See, e.g., Northern Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 510 So.2d 649 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Locascio v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.2d 746, 511 N.Y.S.2d 934 (1987). This court has defined "accident" as an unusual, unexpected and unforeseen happening and has stated that an......
-
Manuel v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.
...was the victim of an intentional tort ( see Lancer Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 175 A.D.2d 239, 572 N.Y.S.2d 704; Locascio v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.2d 746, 511 N.Y.S.2d 934;Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [ Gholson ], 71 A.D.2d 1004, 420 N.Y.S.2d 298). This case i......
-
Mironov v. New York Mut. Underwriters
...that the injury inflicted did not result from the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the automobile (Locascio v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.2d 746, 511 N.Y.S.2d 934, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 616, 526 N.Y.S.2d 436, 521 N.E.2d 443; United Servs. Auto. Assn. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,......
-
Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
...239, 240, 572 N.Y.S.2d 704; Employers Ins. of Wausau v. County of Nassau, 141 A.D.2d 496, 530 N.Y.S.2d 157; Locascio v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.2d 746, 511 N.Y.S.2d 934; Horney v. Tisyl Taxi Corp., 93 A.D.2d 291, 461 N.Y.S.2d 799; Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Au......