Ozturk v. Taskiran
| Citation | 665 N.Y.S.2d 420,245 A.D.2d 355 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,597 Ali OZTURK, et al., Appellants, v. Muzaffer TASKIRAN, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants (Action). Bulent YILDIZ, Appellant, v. Muzaffer TASKIRAN, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants (Action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Karp, Silver, Glinkenhouse & Floumanhaft, Far Rockaway (Alan Queen, of counsel), for appellants.
Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine & McElhenny, Merrick (Roy W. Vasile, of counsel), for respondent Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
Before MILLER, J.P., and PIZZUTO, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs in Action No. 1, Ali Ozturk and Annette Ozturk, and the plaintiff in Action No. 2, Bulent Yildiz, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 19, 1996, as (1) denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the claims of Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., for indemnification to the extent that those claims sought indemnification for amounts within the limits of the additional liability insurance purchased by Ali Ozturk, and (2) granted those branches of the cross motion of Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., which were for summary judgment granting it full indemnity against Ali Ozturk for any damages sustained by Bulent Yildiz in excess of $10,000, judgment against Ali Ozturk for any damages he recovers in excess of $10,000, and judgment declaring that additional liability insurance purchased by Ali Ozturk is not available to Muzaffer Taskiran, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident.
ORDERED that the appeal from the provision of the order which granted that branch of the cross motion which was for a judgment declaring that additional liability insurance purchased by Ali Ozturk is not available to the defendant Muzaffer Taskiran is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by that provision of the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from and reviewed, on the law, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the claims of Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., for indemnification to the extent that those claims sought indemnification for amounts within the limits of the additional liability insurance purchased by Ali Ozturk is granted, and those branches of the cross motion which were for indemnification and judgment against Ali Ozturk are denied; and it is further ORDERED that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
On or about March 11, 1992, the plaintiff Ali Ozturk rented a vehicle from Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. (hereinafter Avis). At that time, Mr. Ozturk also purchased additional liability insurance from Avis of up to $1,000,000.
Mr. Ozturk's agreement with Avis provided, in pertinent part, that he could only allow his spouse or a regular fellow employee to drive the vehicle in his stead, and that he would indemnify Avis for any liability resulting from unauthorized use of the car.
Mr. Ozturk, while riding as a passenger in the vehicle, allowed Muzaffer Taskiran, who was neither his spouse nor a regular fellow employee, to drive it. The vehicle was involved in an accident, injuring Mr. Ozturk and other passengers. The instant actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., ensued.
Avis has the dual status of lessor and insurer, and thus is bound by the antisubrogation rule, as well as the well-settled law that any ambiguities in a contract of insurance are to be resolved in favor of the insured (see, Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311, 486 N.Y.S.2d 873, 476 N.E.2d 272; General Acc. Ins. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 193 A.D.2d 135, 138, 602 N.Y.S.2d 948). The paragraph of the contract describing "additional liability insurance" states that the limits of additional liability coverage are $1,000,000, "instead of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
5-Star Management, Inc. v. Daan Properties, Inc.
...not appeal from the order (see, CPLR 5515; Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 467 N.Y.S.2d 187, 454 N.E.2d 527; Ozturk v. Taskiran, 245 A.D.2d 355, 665 N.Y.S.2d 420), and, accordingly, their purported appeal must be ROSENBLATT, J.P., SANTUCCI, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur. ...