Firemen's Insurance v. Clinton

54 A.D.3d 759, 862 N.Y.S.2d 916
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 9, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 759 (Firemen's Insurance v. Clinton) 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
Firemen's Insurance v. Clinton, 54 A.D.3d 759, 862 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplemental uninsured motorist benefits, Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated April 26, 2007, and (2) an order of the same court entered April 1, 2008, which, upon the decision, made after a framed issue hearing, granted the petition, and the petitioner cross-appeals from the decision.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the decision are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal or cross appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner, the respondents-respondents, and the proposed additional respondents-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company.

Contrary to the contention of Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company, the claimants provided it with notice of the accident as soon as practicable (see Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [3]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Marcone, 29 AD3d 715 [2006]; Steinberg v Hermitage Ins. Co., 26 AD3d 426 [2006]; Kahn v Allstate Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 408 [2005]; Jenkins v Burgos, 99 AD2d 217 [1984]; Lauritano v American Fid. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 564, 568 [1957], affd 4 NY2d 1028 [1958]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court. We reach no determination with respect to the priority of coverage provided by Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company in relation to other coverage, if any, provided by the insurance carrier or carriers for the [760]*760adverse vehicle owned by the proposed additional respondent-respondent Atlanta Toyota. Spolzino, J.P., Lifson, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Vento
63 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 759, 862 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firemens-insurance-v-clinton-nyappdiv-2008.