Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pellegrino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pellegrino

203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4031

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 457 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pellegrino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pellegrino, 203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to stay arbitration, Joseph Pellegrino appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated July 31, 1992, as, upon in effect granting reargument, adhered to its original determination staying arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In making a motion denominated as one to renew and reargue, the appellant offered only evidence that had been in his possession when he had opposed the insurance carrier’s petition. His motion was, therefore, correctly deemed a motion to reargue. Although the court stated that the motion was denied, the court, in fact, addressed its merits. Consequently, the order is appealable (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]). However, the appellant’s contention that he filed a timely notice of his intention to make a claim is without merit (see, Eveready Ins. Co. v Saunders, 149 AD2d 456; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Romero, 109 AD2d 786; Matter of Chiro [Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.], 49 AD2d 686, affd 40 NY2d 852). 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, inter alia, to stay arbitration, Joseph Pellegrino appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated July 31, 1992, as, upon in effect granting reargument, adhered to its original determination staying arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In making a motion denominated as one to renew and reargue, the appellant offered only evidence that had been in his possession when he had opposed the insurance carrier’s petition. His motion was, therefore, correctly deemed a motion to reargue. Although the court stated that the motion was denied, the court, in fact, addressed its merits. Consequently, the order is appealable (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]). However, the appellant’s contention that he filed a timely notice of his intention to make a claim is without merit (see, Eveready Ins. Co. v Saunders, 149 AD2d 456; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Romero, 109 AD2d 786; Matter of Chiro [Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.], 49 AD2d 686, affd 40 NY2d 852). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-pellegrino-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack