From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Horowitz v. St. Fm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the respondent had issued an automobile insurance policy to the petitioner's brother. We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner does not come within the definition of an "insured" in the uninsured motorist endorsement of the subject policy, and that the policy is not ambiguous. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage ( cf., Kennedy v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 930, affd 84 N.Y.2d 963).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Horowitz v. St. Fm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Horowitz v. St. Fm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RUSSELL C. HOROWITZ, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 927

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Russell

That Donovan was also insured for "coverage S" under the policy did not, without more, provide him with the…