In re the Arbitration between Andolina & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Andolina & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

23 A.D.2d 958, 259 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4215

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

DecidedMay 13, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 958 (In re the Arbitration between Andolina & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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 Andolina & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 23 A.D.2d 958, 259 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument denied. Memorandum: In Matter of MVAIC (Stein) (23 A D 2d 526) we said (p. 527), quoting from Weinstein-Korn-Miller (N. Y. Civ. Prac.): “Under section 1450 and subdivision 2 of section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act the parties to an arbitration agreement had the right to a jury trial on the issue of failure to comply with a contract to arbitrate. Although the specific provisions of section 1450 and 1458 (2) are omitted from the CPLR, the new arbitration provisions were “ not intended to eliminate trial by jury if it is desirable or constitutionally required.” ’ (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 4101.28, 7503.24, 409.03, 410.01, 2218.01.) A jury trial should be had on the issue.of the timeliness of giving notice,of claim.” In that ease it seemed that a jury trial was desirable although not constitutionally required. That decision, therefore, is not authority that a jury trial may be had as a matter of right in every MVAÍC ease of this type. Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.

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

Motion for reargument denied. Memorandum: In Matter of MVAIC (Stein) (23 A D 2d 526) we said (p. 527), quoting from Weinstein-Korn-Miller (N. Y. Civ. Prac.): “Under section 1450 and subdivision 2 of section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act the parties to an arbitration agreement had the right to a jury trial on the issue of failure to comply with a contract to arbitrate. Although the specific provisions of section 1450 and 1458 (2) are omitted from the CPLR, the new arbitration provisions were “ not intended to eliminate trial by jury if it is desirable or constitutionally required.” ’ (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 4101.28, 7503.24, 409.03, 410.01, 2218.01.) A jury trial should be had on the issue.of the timeliness of giving notice,of claim.” In that ease it seemed that a jury trial was desirable although not constitutionally required. That decision, therefore, is not authority that a jury trial may be had as a matter of right in every MVAÍC ease of this type. Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 958, 259 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-andolina-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1965.