CNA Insurance v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CNA Insurance v. Glass

75 A.D.2d 600, 426 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11044

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

DecidedApril 14, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 600 (CNA Insurance v. Glass) 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

CNA Insurance v. Glass, 75 A.D.2d 600, 426 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, .petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 20, 1979, which, inter alia, denied the application. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner concedes that it failed to move to stay the arbitration within the 20-day period prescribed by CPLR 7503 (subd [c]). We do not agree that petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to timely respond to the notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioner complains that respondent Glass served the notice of intention to arbitrate on its Manhattan office after dealing with its Queens office. The notice was not forwarded to the Queens office for some five weeks thereafter. This case is readily distinguishable from Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. (Levy) (35 AD2d 916). It is undisputed that Glass notified petitioner’s Manhattan office by letter about a week after the subject accident that he intended to make a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. Moreover, a second letter sent by Glass on the same date to the same office requesting no-fault benefit forms was forwarded to petitioner’s Queens office in seven days or less. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, .petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 20, 1979, which, inter alia, denied the application. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner concedes that it failed to move to stay the arbitration within the 20-day period prescribed by CPLR 7503 (subd [c]). We do not agree that petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to timely respond to the notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioner complains that respondent Glass served the notice of intention to arbitrate on its Manhattan office after dealing with its Queens office. The notice was not forwarded to the Queens office for some five weeks thereafter. This case is readily distinguishable from Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. (Levy) (35 AD2d 916). It is undisputed that Glass notified petitioner’s Manhattan office by letter about a week after the subject accident that he intended to make a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. Moreover, a second letter sent by Glass on the same date to the same office requesting no-fault benefit forms was forwarded to petitioner’s Queens office in seven days or less. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 600, 426 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cna-insurance-v-glass-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack