City of Syracuse v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Syracuse v. Utica Mutual Insurance

90 A.D.2d 979, 456 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19259

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 A.D.2d 979 (City of Syracuse v. Utica Mutual Insurance) 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

City of Syracuse v. Utica Mutual Insurance, 90 A.D.2d 979, 456 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The City of Syracuse appeals from an order which granted summary judgment to Utica Mutual Insurance Company and dismissed the petition in this proceeding brought by the city to stay arbitration of a loss-transfer claim made by Utica Mutual on the ground that the demand for arbitration is barred by the Statute of Limitations (General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd 1, par [c]). Utica Mutual had paid its insured first-party benefits for injuries resulting from an accident with a city truck and sought by arbitration to transfer the loss to the city, a self-insurer. It is clear that Special Term had jurisdiction to resolve the threshold question as to whether no-fault arbitration should be stayed, and whether the claim was barred, by limitation of time (CPLR 7503, subd [a]; 7502, subd [b]; Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 6; Matter of United Nations Dev. Corp. v Norkin Plumbing Co., 45 NY2d 358, 363). On the substantive issue, disputed loss-transfer claims must be submitted to mandatory arbitration (Insurance Law, § 674) and although the rights are in the nature of subrogation, the claim is not one in tort but one under the. no-fault legislation. Thus we have previously held that service of a notice of claim required by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is unnecessary as a condition precedent to mandatory arbitration under no-fault (City of Syracuse v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 83 AD2d 116). By choosing to be self-insured, the city stands in the same position as any other insurer for purposes of the no-fault equitable adjustment procedure. Although Special Term found that Utica Mutual interposed its claim in timely fashion, we affirm because we hold that failure to comply with the special shortened Statute of Limitations for tort claims under section 50-i of the General Municipal Law would not be a bar to loss-transfer mandatory arbitration procedure. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Inglehart, J. — arbitration.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The City of Syracuse appeals from an order which granted summary judgment to Utica Mutual Insurance Company and dismissed the petition in this proceeding brought by the city to stay arbitration of a loss-transfer claim made by Utica Mutual on the ground that the demand for arbitration is barred by the Statute of Limitations (General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd 1, par [c]). Utica Mutual had paid its insured first-party benefits for injuries resulting from an accident with a city truck and sought by arbitration to transfer the loss to the city, a self-insurer. It is clear that Special Term had jurisdiction to resolve the threshold question as to whether no-fault arbitration should be stayed, and whether the claim was barred, by limitation of time (CPLR 7503, subd [a]; 7502, subd [b]; Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 6; Matter of United Nations Dev. Corp. v Norkin Plumbing Co., 45 NY2d 358, 363). On the substantive issue, disputed loss-transfer claims must be submitted to mandatory arbitration (Insurance Law, § 674) and although the rights are in the nature of subrogation, the claim is not one in tort but one under the. no-fault legislation. Thus we have previously held that service of a notice of claim required by section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is unnecessary as a condition precedent to mandatory arbitration under no-fault (City of Syracuse v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 83 AD2d 116). By choosing to be self-insured, the city stands in the same position as any other insurer for purposes of the no-fault equitable adjustment procedure. Although Special Term found that Utica Mutual interposed its claim in timely fashion, we affirm because we hold that failure to comply with the special shortened Statute of Limitations for tort claims under section 50-i of the General Municipal Law would not be a bar to loss-transfer mandatory arbitration procedure. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Inglehart, J. — arbitration.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 979, 456 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-syracuse-v-utica-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack