Government Employees Insurance v. Rosenfarb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Government Employees Insurance v. Rosenfarb

306 A.D.2d 478, 761 N.Y.S.2d 512

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 478 (Government Employees Insurance v. Rosenfarb) 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. Rosenfarb, 306 A.D.2d 478, 761 N.Y.S.2d 512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 for a temporary stay of arbitration of an underinsured motor vehicle claim, Nirit Rosenfarb appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated April 11, 2002, which, in effect, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition for a temporary stay of arbitration. The [479]*479record indicates that the insurance carrier had ample time to seek discovery of the insured, Nirit Rosenfarb, as provided for in the underlying insurance policy, but that it unjustifiably failed to do so in that time (see Matter of lnterboro Mut. Indent. Ins. Co. v Noel, 265 AD2d 557 [1999]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v DeCaro, 244 AD2d 487 [1997]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, 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 for a temporary stay of arbitration of an underinsured motor vehicle claim, Nirit Rosenfarb appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated April 11, 2002, which, in effect, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition for a temporary stay of arbitration. The [479]*479record indicates that the insurance carrier had ample time to seek discovery of the insured, Nirit Rosenfarb, as provided for in the underlying insurance policy, but that it unjustifiably failed to do so in that time (see Matter of lnterboro Mut. Indent. Ins. Co. v Noel, 265 AD2d 557 [1999]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v DeCaro, 244 AD2d 487 [1997]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 478, 761 N.Y.S.2d 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/government-employees-insurance-v-rosenfarb-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack