Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carter

204 A.D.2d 441, 614 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4754

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated August 27, 1992, as denied, without a hearing, that portion of the petition which requested a permanent stay of arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

We find that a threshold triable issue of fact was raised as to whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. Accordingly, that issue should be resolved at a hearing (see, Matter of Insurance Co. v Hartfield, 143 AD2d 667; National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Diaz, 111 AD2d 700; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Olephant, 81 AD2d 886). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated August 27, 1992, as denied, without a hearing, that portion of the petition which requested a permanent stay of arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

We find that a threshold triable issue of fact was raised as to whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. Accordingly, that issue should be resolved at a hearing (see, Matter of Insurance Co. v Hartfield, 143 AD2d 667; National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Diaz, 111 AD2d 700; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Olephant, 81 AD2d 886). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carter, 204 A.D.2d 441, 614 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 441 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related