In re Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & Pitters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & Pitters

191 A.D.2d 337, 595 N.Y.S.2d 314

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 337 (In re Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & Pitters) 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

In re Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & Pitters, 191 A.D.2d 337, 595 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1992, denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of a uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent’s proof of mailing of the notice of cancellation was sufficient to show that the notice was sent to the insured’s address as shown on the policy (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). Petitioner’s argument that the insurer of the offending vehicle did not comply with the cancellation requirements of the New York Automobile Insurance Plan was not asserted before the IAS Court, and thus cannot be asserted on appeal (Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. [Aquaviva], 179 AD2d 546). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1992, denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of a uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent’s proof of mailing of the notice of cancellation was sufficient to show that the notice was sent to the insured’s address as shown on the policy (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). Petitioner’s argument that the insurer of the offending vehicle did not comply with the cancellation requirements of the New York Automobile Insurance Plan was not asserted before the IAS Court, and thus cannot be asserted on appeal (Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. [Aquaviva], 179 AD2d 546). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 337, 595 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-allstate-insurance-pitters-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack