Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Russo

55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15298

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 597 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Russo) 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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Russo, 55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals [598]*598from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 24, 1976, which, inter alia, denied the application. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. Under the terms of the policy in question, contact with the hit-and-run vehicle is a condition precedent to arbitration. Under the conflicting proof presented, the issue of whether there was contact should be decided at a hearing, at which all of the relevant facts may be presented. Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals [598]*598from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 24, 1976, which, inter alia, denied the application. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. Under the terms of the policy in question, contact with the hit-and-run vehicle is a condition precedent to arbitration. Under the conflicting proof presented, the issue of whether there was contact should be decided at a hearing, at which all of the relevant facts may be presented. Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-russo-nyappdiv-1976.