Opinion
December 14, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Genesee County, Davis, J.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Green, O'Donnell and Moule, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, who was injured when he drove his motorcycle into the rear of an automobile, appeals from the grant of summary judgment dismissing his complaint for recovery of first-party no-fault benefits for medical expenses and lost wages from the defendant insurer of his motorcycle and the defendant insurer of the automobile. We agree with Special Term's conclusion that plaintiff was an "occupant" of his motorcycle and thus not eligible to recover first-party benefits pursuant to section 672 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Insurance Law, which provides for payment of first-party benefits to "persons, other than occupants of another motor vehicle or a motorcycle" (emphasis added). Plaintiff, as operator of his motorcycle, was also an occupant of it. The word "occupant" as used in the Insurance Law should be ascribed its normal dictionary meaning ( Colon v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 48 N.Y.2d 570, 575). Therefore, he was properly excluded from no-fault coverage (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1, par [a]; see Tyler v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 110 Misc.2d 471; Fleming v. Allstate Ins. Co. 102 Misc.2d 994; cf. Matter of General Acc. Fire Life Assur. Corp. [ Avery], 88 A.D.2d 739). We note that in the same section of the law at issue here, the Legislature specifically excluded "drivers-operators" but not "occupants" of school buses from no-fault coverage (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1, par [a]). Had the Legislature similarly intended to distinguish between drivers and occupants of motorcycles, it easily could have done so.