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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

33 A.D.2d 1100, 308 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5489

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1100 (In re the Arbitration between Hanavan & 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 Hanavan & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 33 A.D.2d 1100, 308 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the claimant failed to report a “ hit and run ” accident to the police. It appears that claimant notified the State Police that she had been struck by an unknown vehicle, thus complying with the statutory requirement (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]) and the indorsement on her insurance policy. “ One who reports an accident to a police officer reports the occurrence, and not in terms of legal consequences. It is then the duty of the investigating policeman to develop such further details as may be available for investigation by questioning or otherwise.” (Matter of Boxill v. MVAIC, 33 A D 2d 13, 15.) Since appellant sought a stay of arbitration, it had the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a genuine preliminary issue in order to justify a stay. (Matter of Kuhn [MVAIC], 31 A D 2d 707.) This initial burden has not been met here. We take further note of appellant’s failure to request a trial of any claimed issue and thus, in effect, waiving its right thereto. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion to stay arbitration.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ. [60 Misc 2d 407.]

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

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the claimant failed to report a “ hit and run ” accident to the police. It appears that claimant notified the State Police that she had been struck by an unknown vehicle, thus complying with the statutory requirement (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]) and the indorsement on her insurance policy. “ One who reports an accident to a police officer reports the occurrence, and not in terms of legal consequences. It is then the duty of the investigating policeman to develop such further details as may be available for investigation by questioning or otherwise.” (Matter of Boxill v. MVAIC, 33 A D 2d 13, 15.) Since appellant sought a stay of arbitration, it had the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a genuine preliminary issue in order to justify a stay. (Matter of Kuhn [MVAIC], 31 A D 2d 707.) This initial burden has not been met here. We take further note of appellant’s failure to request a trial of any claimed issue and thus, in effect, waiving its right thereto. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion to stay arbitration.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ. [60 Misc 2d 407.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1100, 308 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-hanavan-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack