Hanover Insurance v. Castillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanover Insurance v. Castillo

213 A.D.2d 304, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 304 (Hanover Insurance v. Castillo) 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

Hanover Insurance v. Castillo, 213 A.D.2d 304, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine S. Miller, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which denied petitioner’s motion to permanently stay arbitration and to dispense with service upon its purported insured, Jose Acosta, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent that such denial is without prejudice to renewal upon proof of service upon the purportedly insured party or an application for substituted service as to such individual, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

By order dated March 16, 1993, petitioner was directed to effect service upon its purported insured. The IAS Court correctly determined that, upon its renewed application, petitioner’s proof of attempted service did not demonstrate substantial compliance with the prior order, and the renewed application was properly denied on that basis.

We make no determination with respect to the merits of the application, and modify only to indicate that the denial is without prejudice to further renewal upon proof of proper service or to an application for substituted service. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine S. Miller, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which denied petitioner’s motion to permanently stay arbitration and to dispense with service upon its purported insured, Jose Acosta, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent that such denial is without prejudice to renewal upon proof of service upon the purportedly insured party or an application for substituted service as to such individual, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

By order dated March 16, 1993, petitioner was directed to effect service upon its purported insured. The IAS Court correctly determined that, upon its renewed application, petitioner’s proof of attempted service did not demonstrate substantial compliance with the prior order, and the renewed application was properly denied on that basis.

We make no determination with respect to the merits of the application, and modify only to indicate that the denial is without prejudice to further renewal upon proof of proper service or to an application for substituted service. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 304, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-insurance-v-castillo-nyappdiv-1995.