CNA Insurance v. Rauso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CNA Insurance v. Rauso

213 A.D.2d 712, 624 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3573

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 712 (CNA Insurance v. Rauso) 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. Rauso, 213 A.D.2d 712, 624 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay the arbitration demanded by the appellant, Stephen Rauso appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered March 15, 1993, which granted the application, and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered July 30, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered March 15, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered July 30, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 30, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioner is awarded two bills of costs.

The appellant was involved in a car accident caused by one car which, after hitting a second car, then hit the appellant’s car. The car that hit the appellant’s car was uninsured at the time of the accident, a fact which the appellant did not ascertain until 23 months after the accident, although there is no indication he could not have done so earlier. The appellant did not inform his employer’s insurance company, the petitioner, of his claim for coverage under the employer’s uninsured motorist policy within the time limit set forth in the insurance contract (see, General Ace. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862). He did not notify the petitioner of his claim until 23 months after the accident. He provided no mitigating factors or acceptable excuse for this lapse, and thus failed to act with due diligence in notifying the petitioner (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Romero, 109 AD2d 786; Jenkins v Burgos, 99 AD2d 217).

[713]*713The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not preserved for appellate review, having been raised for the first time on appeal, or they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Florio, 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 stay the arbitration demanded by the appellant, Stephen Rauso appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered March 15, 1993, which granted the application, and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered July 30, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered March 15, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered July 30, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 30, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioner is awarded two bills of costs.

The appellant was involved in a car accident caused by one car which, after hitting a second car, then hit the appellant’s car. The car that hit the appellant’s car was uninsured at the time of the accident, a fact which the appellant did not ascertain until 23 months after the accident, although there is no indication he could not have done so earlier. The appellant did not inform his employer’s insurance company, the petitioner, of his claim for coverage under the employer’s uninsured motorist policy within the time limit set forth in the insurance contract (see, General Ace. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862). He did not notify the petitioner of his claim until 23 months after the accident. He provided no mitigating factors or acceptable excuse for this lapse, and thus failed to act with due diligence in notifying the petitioner (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Romero, 109 AD2d 786; Jenkins v Burgos, 99 AD2d 217).

[713]*713The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not preserved for appellate review, having been raised for the first time on appeal, or they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 712, 624 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cna-insurance-v-rauso-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack