Legal Opinion · Dissent
Meadvin v. Buckley-Southland Oil Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 13, 1981Published
1Dissent
Doerr and Denman, JJ. (dissenting).
We respectfully disagree. Under the “collateral source rule” a tort-feasor may not benefit because some or all of the injured party’s damages were paid for by a third party. In New York, however, where the insurance proceeds are derived from an insurance policy which was paid for by the wrongdoer himself, evidence of such proceeds is admissible in mitigation of damages (see Moore v Leggette, 24 AD2d 891, affd 18 NY2d 864; Matter of McKay v Town of West Seneca, 51 AD2d 373, 377, revd on dissent below 41 NY2d 931; Brink v Killeen, 48 AD2d 823, 824; Grynbal v…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. E. W. Smith Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Claim of McKay v. Town of West SenecaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- State Bank v. Dan-Bar Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
- Szybura v. City of ElmiraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
- Moore v. LeggetteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.