 |
Home
 Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law Home
Recent Law Watch Results
Loislaw LawWatch is provided as a service of Loislaw.com, a division of Aspen Publishing. Loislaw LawWatch provides access to recent cases based on the search criteria provided by your section. The search criteria may be by area of practice, by court, and /or by date. The NYSBA also provides a basic level of free legal research to all members. You may access free legal research from Loislaw through your MyNYSBA page or through For Attorneys. insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
insurance law - insurance law
SANTA v. CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LTD., 8026 (1st Dept 6-26-2012)
8026
Decided on June 26, 2012
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance, Ltd. must make $1,000,000 in primary coverage available to plaintiffs, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the maximum coverage available to plaintiffs through defendant Capitol was limited to $50,000, granted plaintiffs' ... In this declaratory judgment action, which arose out of an underlying personal injury action in which plaintiffs alleged that they were assaulted while patrons at a Manhattan nightclub, the $50,000 sublimit applicable to assault and battery coverage in the primary policy applied to all ...
insurance law - insurance law
STEWART v. PEREZ, 26064/06 (6-14-2012)
No. 26064/06
June 14, 2012
Defendant Alberto Perez cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability for plaintiffs' injuries and dismissing the claims and cross claims against him. Third-party defendants, Bibi A. Bacchus and Nahiff Bacchus, cross ? moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 2221 to renew motion for summary judgment, dated June 16, 2009, on the issue of liability for plaintiff's injuries dismissing the claims and cross claims Page 3 against them. Third-party defendant...
insurance law - insurance law
MAGGIO v. RANDAZZESE, 09-47122 (6-8-2012)
09-47122
June 8, 2012
Plaintiff Joseph Maggio commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and East Meadow Avenue in the Town of Hempstead on June 26, 2009. The accident allegedly occurred when the vehicle operated by defendant Vincent Randazzese and owned by defendant Maria Passantino struck the rear of the vehicle operated by plaintiff while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Plaintiff, by his...
insurance law - insurance law
NUNEZ v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, 2011-04885 (2d Dept 6-20-2012)
2011-04885
Decided on June 20, 2012
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which, upon, in effect, the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the ... DECISION ~amp~ ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle while crossing an intersection and, as a result, sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the categories of...
duty to defend - duty to defend
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 5363 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
5363, 5364
Decided on June 21, 2012
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) for summary judgment declaring that Scottsdale is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) for any portion of Admiral's contribution to the settlement of the underlying action, granted the cross motion of defendant American Empire Surplus ...
insurance law - insurance law
MARTIN v. PORTEXIT CORP., 6880 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6880
Decided on June 21, 2012
Defendants Portexit Corp. and Ian Duke Hamilton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue a prior order granting said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, vacated the prior order, and denied their motion for summary judgment. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey ~amp~ Moskovits, P.C., ... In this personal injury action, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury. The affirmations of defendants' medical experts each bore the electronic signature of the physician. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the affirmations...
insurance law - insurance law
LARRABEE v. BRADSHAW, 513261 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513261
Calendar Date: April 16, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
"On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint that alleges a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendant bears the initial `burden of establishing by competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury caused by the accident'" Page 2 (Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2010], quoting Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]). Here, plaintiff claims that her injuries constituted a ... In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she testified that she worked as a waitress from 1997 to 2004 and had previously worked as a waitress, housekeeper and maid. Although plaintiff testified that she was not...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF MTA BUS COMPANY v. ACE USA, 403338/2011 (6-13-2012)
No. 403338/2011
June 13, 2012
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 29, 2008, nonparty Mintra Busgith (Busgith), a home attendant, was injured during the course of her employment while on the wheelchair lift of an MTA Bus. ACE USA was the workers' Page 2 compensation carrier for Busgith's employer, and paid Busgith benefits, including lost wages and medical expenses, in the total amount of $32,831.23. On May 18, 2011, ACE USA initiated an arbitration request through Arbitration Forums, Inc., seeking to recoup from MTA Bus what... What evidence caused you to render this decision and why?
insurance law - insurance law
OSHY v. GIANNIKAS, 1618/2010 (6-14-2012)
1618/2010
June 14, 2012
The infant plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her ... Dr. Leon Sultan, an orthopedic surgeon, retained by the defendant, examined Nancy Oshy on November 12, 2011. At the time of the examination she was nine years old. Plaintiff reported Page 3 that she has no complaints in regard to the accident of January 22, 2007 except for occasional "bothering of her neck posteriorly."...
insurance law - insurance law
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE CO., 403176/97 (6-22-2012)
403176/97
Decided on June 22, 2012
This court entered an order ("Liquidation Order") on November 20, 1997, pursuant to which U.S. Capital Insurance Company ("U.S. Capital") was adjudged to be insolvent and placed into liquidation. The Liquidation Order appointed the then-Superintendent of Insurance and his successors in office as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. Benjamin M. Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York has now succeeded the Superintendent of Insurance as Liquidator of U.S. Capital. He has appointed... The Liquidator has been discharging his responsibilities since November 20, 1997. On March 8, 2012, the Liquidator submitted his initial report on the status of the Liquidation Proceeding for approval, providing a history of U.S. Capital, a summary of the Liquidator's activities...
|
