Eveready Insurance v. Mazza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eveready Insurance v. Mazza

208 A.D.2d 725, 618 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9860

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 725 (Eveready Insurance v. Mazza) 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

Eveready Insurance v. Mazza, 208 A.D.2d 725, 618 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 8, 1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent-respondent.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent Brenda Mazza’s insurance policy contained inconsistent provisions as to the circumstances under which a policy holder is required to file a statement under oath in order to acquire certain postaccident benefits. We agree. In accordance with well established law, we construe the inconsistency against the carrier (see, Reisman v Coleman, 193 AD2d 659, 660), and we conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the carrier’s petition to stay arbitration (see, Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v Kaparos, 183 AD2d 566). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt 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 arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 8, 1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent-respondent.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent Brenda Mazza’s insurance policy contained inconsistent provisions as to the circumstances under which a policy holder is required to file a statement under oath in order to acquire certain postaccident benefits. We agree. In accordance with well established law, we construe the inconsistency against the carrier (see, Reisman v Coleman, 193 AD2d 659, 660), and we conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the carrier’s petition to stay arbitration (see, Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v Kaparos, 183 AD2d 566). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 725, 618 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eveready-insurance-v-mazza-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack