From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurtig v. Arestia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 1997
235 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 27, 1997.

In Action No. 4 for a judgment declaring that Aetna Casualty and Surety Company is not obligated to defend Alexander Garbizu in Action No. 1, Action No. 2, and Action No. 3, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated February 24, 1992, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment.

Before: Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is undisputed that Michael Slotnick gave permission to Alexander Garbizu to repair his 1984 Honda automobile, which was insured by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (hereinafter Aetna). On December 9, 1987, while Garbizu was operating the vehicle, it was involved in an accident from which these actions arise. Aetna has failed to establish as a matter of law ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that Alexander Garbizu was not operating the motor vehicle with Slotnick's permission at the time that it was involved in the subject accident. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied Aetna's motion for summary judgment.


Summaries of

Hurtig v. Arestia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 1997
235 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Hurtig v. Arestia

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HURTIG et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRANCINE ARESTIA et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
653 N.Y.S.2d 855