From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fesko v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06019.

Decided June 28, 2004.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled Sloper-Willen Comm. Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Fesko, pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under Index No. 4322/01, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered June 2, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Ronald K. Friedman, PLLC, Fishkill, N.Y., for appellant.

Flink, Smith Associates, Latham, N.Y. (Jeffrey D. Wait of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, is not obligated to provide insurance coverage to the plaintiff in the underlying action. The policy contained a specific liability coverage exclusion for the vehicle that the plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident, which was not a "covered vehicle" as designated in the policy. The defendant, therefore, is not obligated to provide coverage ( see August v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 98 N.Y.2d 632; Jerge v. Buettner, 90 N.Y.2d 950, revg on dissent 225 A.D.2d 294).

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action ( see Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).

FLORIO, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and FISHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fesko v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Fesko v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:KELLY A. FESKO, appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 28, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
779 N.Y.S.2d 567

Citing Cases

Creinis v. Hanover Ins. Co.

Further, I respectfully submit that offending vehicles are not "insureds" embraced within the clear language…