Hartford Insurance v. Khan
This text of 279 A.D.2d 524 (Hartford Insurance v. Khan) 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.
Opinion
In a [525]*525proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant’s vehicle and an unidentified vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 A.D.2d 524, 718 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-insurance-v-khan-nyappdiv-2001.