Allstate Insurance v. Passaretti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Passaretti

49 A.D.2d 720, 372 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 720 (Allstate Insurance v. Passaretti) 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

Allstate Insurance v. Passaretti, 49 A.D.2d 720, 372 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme court, New York County, entered November 15, 1972, which granted the petitioner’s application for a stay, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for further hearing with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Respondents-appellants’ vehicle was allegedly struck by a hit-and-run motor vehicle. While they reported the matter within the proper time, they did not in such report indicate that it was a hit-and-run occurrence. The court at Special Term on that basis entered judgment granting the application made by the petitioner-respondent insurance company for a stay of arbitration. There is no requirement in law that an accident, when reported, be described in terms of the legal consequences. (Matter of Boxill v MVAIC, 33 AD2d 13.) Accordingly, the report being timely, the appellants are not barred, and a plenary hearing should be held on the question of whether or not it was a hit-and-run accident. Concur— Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme court, New York County, entered November 15, 1972, which granted the petitioner’s application for a stay, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for further hearing with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Respondents-appellants’ vehicle was allegedly struck by a hit-and-run motor vehicle. While they reported the matter within the proper time, they did not in such report indicate that it was a hit-and-run occurrence. The court at Special Term on that basis entered judgment granting the application made by the petitioner-respondent insurance company for a stay of arbitration. There is no requirement in law that an accident, when reported, be described in terms of the legal consequences. (Matter of Boxill v MVAIC, 33 AD2d 13.) Accordingly, the report being timely, the appellants are not barred, and a plenary hearing should be held on the question of whether or not it was a hit-and-run accident. Concur— Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 720, 372 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-passaretti-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack