In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance & Iglesias

264 A.D.2d 580, 694 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8950
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 9, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 580 (In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance & Iglesias) 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 the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance & Iglesias, 264 A.D.2d 580, 694 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered July 23, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 for a temporary stay of an arbitration for uninsured motorist coverage, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the temporary stay granted pending a hearing to determine whether there was insurance coverage of the vehicle owned by Grand Glass.

Contrary to the motion court’s determination, the eviden-tiary submissions on petitioner’s unopposed application raised questions of fact as to the existence of insurance coverage that must be resolved at a hearing (see, Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Greaney], 156 AD2d 154). The police accident report included an insurance code for the Grand Glass vehicle. We note that it is unclear whether the person who reported the insurance code was under a duty to provide that information to the police (see, Lopez v Ford Motor Credit Co., 238 AD2d 211; Balboa Ins. Co. v Alston, 141 AD2d 364). A factual question is also raised by the printouts of the Department of Motor Vehicles registration record expansions, which show that the alleged respective insurers of the vehicle and its operator had terminated coverage prior to the accident, since such proof is not necessarily dispositive of the issue (see, Matter of Hanmer [581]*581v Tofany, 34 AD2d 383). Thus, the question remains whether petitioner can demonstrate that the Grand Glass vehicle had insurance coverage at the time of the accident, either under a policy held by Grand Glass or by the Grand Glass employee driving the vehicle (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Holmes], 173 AD2d 260; Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v Ferrer, 110 AD2d 503). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Cedeno)
2024 NY Slip Op 51089(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 580, 694 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-allcity-insurance-iglesias-nyappdiv-1999.