From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 16, 1983
98 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

December 16, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mastrella, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that plaintiff, on the evidence submitted on this motion for summary judgment, has no cause of action for malicious prosecution. Nevertheless, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, a cause of action against defendant for improperly inducing the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend plaintiff's driver's license pursuant to section 332 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 N.Y.2d 397, 405-406). Obviously, the purpose of section 332 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is to protect the public from uninsured motorists who fail to satisfy judgments resulting from personal injury or property damage. The section was not designed to assist the defendant insurance company to recover from its insured money paid by mistake.


Summaries of

Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 16, 1983
98 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Cusenz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT J. CUSENZ, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1983

Citations

98 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Dupaul v. Jackson

The Court found the statute was enacted to enforce the financial responsibility of drivers. The same purpose…