Hartford Insurance v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartford Insurance v. Nunez

226 A.D.2d 639, 641 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367

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

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 639 (Hartford Insurance v. Nunez) 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 Insurance v. Nunez, 226 A.D.2d 639, 641 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Jose Nunez appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated October 3, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the extensive testimony adduced by the petitioner established that exhaustive searches of the petitioner’s files and records disclosed that no policy of insurance had ever been issued to the appellant. This evidence clearly sufficed to overcome the single document presented by the appellant as proof of coverage, and the appellant failed to come forward with any additional evidence that he had been insured by the petitioner. Accordingly, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the Supreme Court’s determination that no insurance coverage existed in this case (see, Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. [Glaude], 208 AD2d 376; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Holmes], 173 AD2d 260; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Dye], 170 AD2d 683; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Dixon, 121 AD2d 256; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Yeglinski, 79 AD2d 1029). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, 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 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Jose Nunez appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated October 3, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the extensive testimony adduced by the petitioner established that exhaustive searches of the petitioner’s files and records disclosed that no policy of insurance had ever been issued to the appellant. This evidence clearly sufficed to overcome the single document presented by the appellant as proof of coverage, and the appellant failed to come forward with any additional evidence that he had been insured by the petitioner. Accordingly, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the Supreme Court’s determination that no insurance coverage existed in this case (see, Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. [Glaude], 208 AD2d 376; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Holmes], 173 AD2d 260; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Dye], 170 AD2d 683; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Dixon, 121 AD2d 256; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Yeglinski, 79 AD2d 1029). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 639, 641 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-insurance-v-nunez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack