Empire Insurance v. Milioner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire Insurance v. Milioner

187 A.D.2d 277, 589 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12680

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 277 (Empire Insurance v. Milioner) 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

Empire Insurance v. Milioner, 187 A.D.2d 277, 589 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner withdrew its claim that the offending vehicle was uninsured after it was shown that the basis of the demand for arbitration was underinsurance. Because the initial petition [278]*278did not assert a claim of underinsurance, the IAS Court properly denied the application for a stay as untimely. Application of the doctrine of relation back, sua sponte, would have been inappropriate. In any event, petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for a stay of arbitration (see, Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mortise, 178 AD2d 646). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner withdrew its claim that the offending vehicle was uninsured after it was shown that the basis of the demand for arbitration was underinsurance. Because the initial petition [278]*278did not assert a claim of underinsurance, the IAS Court properly denied the application for a stay as untimely. Application of the doctrine of relation back, sua sponte, would have been inappropriate. In any event, petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for a stay of arbitration (see, Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mortise, 178 AD2d 646). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 277, 589 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-insurance-v-milioner-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack