Nunez v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1988 |
| Citation | 139 A.D.2d 712,527 N.Y.S.2d 467 |
| Parties | Nery NUNEZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Diamond, Rutman & Costello, New York City (Martin S. Rothman, Mark S. Silberglitt, Alyne I. Diamond and Eileen R. Seligson, of counsel), for appellant.
Gervais, deCicco & McCorry, Garden City (Philip A. Jordan, Jr., of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, SPATT and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover interest on a judgment entered against the defendants' respective assureds in an underlying personal injury action, the defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated December 16, 1986, which, inter alia, (1) granted the defendant Travelers Insurance Company's (hereinafter Travelers) cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint as against Travelers, and (2) denied its cross motion for summary judgment against Travelers and dismissed its "cross claim" on the ground that it had no standing as against Travelers in the matter herein.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, insofar as it seeks review of the granting of the defendant Travelers' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant State Farm the interest and costs on a judgment entered against the defendants' respective assureds in the underlying personal injury action. At issue here is whether Travelers should be directed to pay to State Farm 80% of the interest and costs which State Farm has paid to the plaintiff.
Initially we note that State Farm is not aggrieved by that portion of the order which grants summary judgment to Travelers dismissing the plaintiff's complaint as against it ( see, Schultz v. Alfred, 11 A.D.2d 266, 268, 203 N.Y.S.2d 201), and accordingly, it has no right to appeal therefrom.
As to the dismissal of State Farm's cross claim against Travelers for its share of the interest and costs, the papers submitted to the Supreme Court, Kings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pianin v. Altorki
... ... 994 [1986]; Paul Tausig & Son, Inc. v Providence ... Washington Ins. Co., 28 A.D.2d 279, 281 [1st Dept 1967] ... affd 21 N.Y.2d 1022 [1968]). Moreover, allegations ... Sch. Dist. No ... 1, 166 A.D.2d 553, 554 [2d Dept 1990]; Nunez v ... Travelers Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 712, 713 [2d Dept 1988]; ... Blake Realty, Inc. v ... ...
-
Candela v. Port Motors Inc.
...v. Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 182 A.D.2d 664, 582 N.Y.S.2d 258; Lackner v. Roth, 166 A.D.2d 686, 561 N.Y.S.2d 279; Nunez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 712, 527 N.Y.S.2d 467). ...
-
Mixon v. TBV, Inc.
...reasons, this Court has not followed Stein in recent years. In a long series of cases beginning in 1988 with Nunez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 712, 713, 527 N.Y.S.2d 467, we have consistently held that a defendant is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against ......
-
Yule v. Town of Huntington
...to appeal from that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511; Lackner v. Roth, 166 A.D.2d 686, 561 N.Y.S.2d 279; Nunez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 712, 527 N.Y.S.2d 467). The Supreme Court did not err in granting summary judgment to the remaining defendants. Barricades were provided at th......