Government Employees Insurance v. Goldenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Government Employees Insurance v. Goldenberg

34 A.D.3d 582, 823 N.Y.S.2d 675

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 582 (Government Employees Insurance v. Goldenberg) 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

Government Employees Insurance v. Goldenberg, 34 A.D.3d 582, 823 N.Y.S.2d 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Boris Goldenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated August 31, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

[583]*583Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court was free to disbelieve the appellant’s uncontroverted testimony on the issue of whether he timely reported the subject accident to the police (see Matter of Nowakowski, 2 NY2d 618, 622; Mynarski v Ravo, 72 AD2d 741 [1979]). Under the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Boris Goldenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated August 31, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

[583]*583Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court was free to disbelieve the appellant’s uncontroverted testimony on the issue of whether he timely reported the subject accident to the police (see Matter of Nowakowski, 2 NY2d 618, 622; Mynarski v Ravo, 72 AD2d 741 [1979]). Under the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 582, 823 N.Y.S.2d 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/government-employees-insurance-v-goldenberg-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack