In re Motors Insurance Corporation

221 A.D.2d 634, 634 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12468
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 27, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 634 (In re Motors Insurance Corporation) 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 Motors Insurance Corporation, 221 A.D.2d 634, 634 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a [635]*635proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an uninsured motorist arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated June 9, 1994, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent procured his award of uninsured motorist benefits through fraud (see, Imgest Fin. Establishment v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 172 AD2d 291). Accordingly, it has not established that the arbitrator’s award should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i).

The arbitrator was fully aware of the appellant’s contentions with respect to the respondent’s alleged fraud, but nevertheless concluded that the respondent was entitled to an award. It is well settled that the "[c]ourts are reluctant to disturb the decisions of arbitrators lest the value of this method of resolving controversies be undermined [and] * * * it is imperative that the integrity of the process, as opposed to the correctness of the individual decision be zealously safeguarded” (Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker, 68 NY2d 225, 230; see also, Matter of Siegel [Lewis], 40 NY2d 687). Moreover, the appellant never established that the respondent’s claim was excluded by the language of the underlying policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gluck v. Eastern Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
271 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D.2d 634, 634 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-motors-insurance-corporation-nyappdiv-1995.