CGU Insurance v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CGU Insurance v. Velez

287 A.D.2d 624, 731 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9779

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 2001·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated June 28, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). The Supreme Court’s determination that the offending vehicle was properly identified by Willie Velez as a vehicle owned at the time of the accident by Tiffany Lewandowski is supported by a fair interpretation of [625] the evidence. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated June 28, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). The Supreme Court’s determination that the offending vehicle was properly identified by Willie Velez as a vehicle owned at the time of the accident by Tiffany Lewandowski is supported by a fair interpretation of [625] the evidence. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

CGU Insurance v. Velez, 287 A.D.2d 624, 731 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

287 A.D.2d 624 (CGU Insurance v. Velez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related