Continental Insurance v. Lulanaj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Continental Insurance v. Lulanaj

33 A.D.3d 614, 822 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 614 (Continental Insurance v. Lulanaj) 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

Continental Insurance v. Lulanaj, 33 A.D.3d 614, 822 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 27, 2005, which, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay the arbitration.

[615]*615Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The additional respondent Utica Mutual Insurance Company demonstrated that it met the requirements set forth in Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co. (19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]) to disclaim coverage on the ground of lack of cooperation of its insured, Paldo Express (see Allstate Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 605 [2005]). Accordingly, the Paldo Express vehicle was uninsured and, as such, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Schmidt, J.P, Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 27, 2005, which, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay the arbitration.

[615]*615Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The additional respondent Utica Mutual Insurance Company demonstrated that it met the requirements set forth in Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co. (19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]) to disclaim coverage on the ground of lack of cooperation of its insured, Paldo Express (see Allstate Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 605 [2005]). Accordingly, the Paldo Express vehicle was uninsured and, as such, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Schmidt, J.P, Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 614, 822 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-insurance-v-lulanaj-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack