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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] record 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] record 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.

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

Pincite

306 A.D.2d 478 (Government Employees Insurance v. Rosenfarb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related