From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faro v. Transamerica Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1980
78 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

September 22, 1980


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitrator's award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 7, 1980, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application granted, and award confirmed. Petitioner was injured while repairing a street light; he was standing in the bucket of a vehicle known as a "cherry picker" or "bucket truck". Although petitioner's claim for no-fault benefits was initially denied by the respondent, he demanded arbitration of his claim and the arbitrator ruled in his favor. Special Term denied confirmation of the award, however, concluding that the petitioner's injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1; Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 1028, affd 44 N.Y.2d 881). Without deciding whether the arbitrator's determination was erroneous as a matter of law, we hold that the award was not so irrational as to warrant vacatur (see Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 A.D.2d 442). Titone, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Faro v. Transamerica Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1980
78 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

Faro v. Transamerica Insurance

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK FARO, Appellant, v. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 22, 1980

Citations

78 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

Kellogg v. Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Co.

Some authority suggests that Kellogg's engagement of the tow truck might be considered to fall outside the…

Booth v. Hartford Ins. Group

Plaintiff argues that the denial of equal protection stems from the fact that plaintiff can seek only limited…