From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez-Mendez v. Roseland Amusement & Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 2003
305 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1082

May 8, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 15, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in an alleged shooting on defendant amusement park's premises, and a third-party action by the amusement park against its insurer for a declaration of coverage, granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the amusement park, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

David B. Karel, for third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Arthur J. Liederman, for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach, JJ.


The subject declaration was properly made upon a complaint alleging that plaintiff was "shot, assaulted, battered and attacked," and a policy containing a broad exclusion for claims arising out of an assault and battery. It does not avail appellant that issues of fact exist as to exactly how plaintiff was injured. The injury sought to be compensated was allegedly caused by an assault or battery without which plaintiff would have no cause of action. The possible lack of intent to cause that injury, and resulting plethora of possible negligence claims, are irrelevant to the issue of coverage (U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Val-Blue Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 821; Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Creative Hous., 88 N.Y.2d 347).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Perez-Mendez v. Roseland Amusement & Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 2003
305 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Perez-Mendez v. Roseland Amusement & Development Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FELICIANO PEREZ-MENDEZ, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ROSELAND AMUSEMENT…

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

Date published: May 8, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 848

Citing Cases

Mumford v. 854 Gerard Ave. Corp.

Although the applicable exclusion does not encompass negligence claims, it still would relieve Sirius America…

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jinx-Proof Inc.

Additionally, an assault and battery exclusion applies if no cause of action would exist but for the assault…