Empire Mutual Insurance v. Sash

53 A.D.2d 614, 385 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 1, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 614 (Empire Mutual Insurance v. Sash) 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 Mutual Insurance v. Sash, 53 A.D.2d 614, 385 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration sought by respondents Philip Sash and Flex Pierre upon a claim on the uninsured motorist endorsement respondent of Sash’s automobile insurance policy, in which proceeding appellant, Criterion Insurance Company, the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident with the above-mentioned individual respondents, was added as a party, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 19, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (1) permanently stayed arbitration and (2) ordered appellant to defend its insured in any action arising out of the accident. Proceeding remanded to Special Term for a determination, after a hearing if one is necessary for the purpose, of whether the owner of the vehicle denies receipt of Criterion’s notice of cancellation, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. On the record before us, we can find no indication as to whether Isabel Thomas denies receipt of Criterion’s notice of cancellation. That fact is crucial in disposing of this appeal (see Manning v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 48 AD2d 838). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs in the result on constraint of Manning v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. (48 AD2d 838), although he still adheres to the views inherent in the dissent in that case, and notes that Nagel v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (51 AD2d 1022) is not to the contrary as there the record shows that the insured denied having received notice of the cancellation of the policy.

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

Related

Felician v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
113 Misc. 2d 825 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Zeman v. Zack Agency, Inc.
75 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Viuker v. Allstate Insurance
70 A.D.2d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re the Arbitration between Safeco Insurance & Testagrossa
67 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Empire Mutual Insurance v. Sash
59 A.D.2d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 614, 385 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-mutual-insurance-v-sash-nyappdiv-1976.