Galaska v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

177 A.D.2d 947, 577 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15672
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1991·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs fail to allege that they did not agree to arbitrate. Rather, plaintiffs seek to avoid the clear and explicit arbitration provisions contained in the policy, issued by defendant, on the [948]*948ground that the policy was never delivered to them. That argument is devoid of merit because plaintiffs’ entire claim is premised on the existence of that policy (see, CPLR 7503 [a]; see also, Bohlen Indus. v Flint Oil & Gas, 106 AD2d 909, 910). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Callahan, A. P. J., Den-man, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Galaska v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 177 A.D.2d 947, 577 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

177 A.D.2d 947 (Galaska v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ruiz v. State Wide Insulation & Construction Corp.
269 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Hirshfeld v. Maryland Casualty Co.
249 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Schunk v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
237 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Benatovich v. Propis Agency, Inc.
224 A.D.2d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Arbitration between Metropolitan Propery & Liability Insurance & Traphagen
199 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)