Eckart v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eckart v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

208 A.D.2d 533, 616 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9236

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 533 (Eckart v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Eckart v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 208 A.D.2d 533, 616 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated January 21, 1993, as denied the appellant’s cross petition to vacate the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The subject insurance policy contains a provision permitting either party to demand a trial de novo where, as here, the amount of the arbitration award exceeds the limit specified by the financial responsibility law. However, we find that the right to make such a demand is linked, by the terms of the insurance contract, to the procedures governing common law arbitration proceedings. In this case, the parties proceeded to arbitration in accordance with the rules applicable to the American Arbitration Association, and not in accordance with the policy provisions. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant was not entitled to invoke the trial de novo provision of the policy (cf., Matter of General Acc. Ins. Co. [Giacomazzo] 204 AD2d 236). Accordingly, the court properly denied its cross motion to vacate the award. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated January 21, 1993, as denied the appellant’s cross petition to vacate the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The subject insurance policy contains a provision permitting either party to demand a trial de novo where, as here, the amount of the arbitration award exceeds the limit specified by the financial responsibility law. However, we find that the right to make such a demand is linked, by the terms of the insurance contract, to the procedures governing common law arbitration proceedings. In this case, the parties proceeded to arbitration in accordance with the rules applicable to the American Arbitration Association, and not in accordance with the policy provisions. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant was not entitled to invoke the trial de novo provision of the policy (cf., Matter of General Acc. Ins. Co. [Giacomazzo] 204 AD2d 236). Accordingly, the court properly denied its cross motion to vacate the award. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 533, 616 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckart-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack