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

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2016

Docket653090/13 1763 1762

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 921 (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. AT&T, Corp.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 921, 37 N.Y.S.3d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-london-v-att-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack