You are here: / / VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED...
, ,

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county was obligated to provide uninsured motorist coverage to respondent, who was injured by an uninsured driver while driving a county car. The county argued it was exempt from providing uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 370:

​

“[T]he Legislature has specifically declared its grave concern that motorists who use the public highways be financially responsible to ensure that innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents be recompensed for their injuries and losses'” … . Thus, although the Legislature authorized municipalities to be self-insured pursuant to the exception in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370(1), it did not exculpate them from the responsibility of providing uninsured motorist protection … . Matter of County of Suffolk v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00552, Second Dept 1-31-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT))/UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE (MUNICIPAL LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, INSURANCE LAW,  VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision Applicable to the Offense Defendant Pled To Required Vacation of Sentence
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
AGGRIEVED CANDIDATE NOT BOUND BY STATUTORY DEADLINES FOR FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATING PETITIONS, RESPONDENT HAD ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE OBJECTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEEMED THE OBJECTIONS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered When an Individual Would Be Afforded More Coverage by the Policy with the SUM Provision
County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue
THE TOWN’S SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF A CAMPGROUND WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE CAMPGROUND CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND RETAINED THE INVOICES; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY... CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY...