Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. AT&T, Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. AT&T, Corp.

142 A.D.3d 921, 37 N.Y.S.3d 886

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 2016·No. 653090/13 1763 1762·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 1, 2015, which denied defendant American Excess Insurance Association’s (AEIA) motion to compel arbitration, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 2, 2015, which denied AEIA’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

AEIA’s motion to dismiss was filed well beyond the statutory time period (CPLR 3211 [e]; 3012 [a]), and the record does not support AEIA’s contention that the delay was due to plaintiffs’ actions.

The motion to compel arbitration was correctly denied, as it cannot be said that plaintiffs, nonsignatories to the AEIA policy containing the arbitration clause that signatory AEIA seeks to enforce, “knowingly exploited]” the AEIA policy or derived a “direct benefit” from it (Matter of Belzberg v Verus Invs. Hold *922 ings Inc., 21 NY3d 626, 631 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of SSL Intl., PLC v Zook, 44 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 1, 2015, which denied defendant American Excess Insurance Association’s (AEIA) motion to compel arbitration, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 2, 2015, which denied AEIA’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

AEIA’s motion to dismiss was filed well beyond the statutory time period (CPLR 3211 [e]; 3012 [a]), and the record does not support AEIA’s contention that the delay was due to plaintiffs’ actions.

The motion to compel arbitration was correctly denied, as it cannot be said that plaintiffs, nonsignatories to the AEIA policy containing the arbitration clause that signatory AEIA seeks to enforce, “knowingly exploited]” the AEIA policy or derived a “direct benefit” from it (Matter of Belzberg v Verus Invs. Hold *922 ings Inc., 21 NY3d 626, 631 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of SSL Intl., PLC v Zook, 44 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. AT&T, Corp., 142 A.D.3d 921, 37 N.Y.S.3d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

142 A.D.3d 921 (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. AT&T, Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related