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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

25 A.D.2d 634, 269 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 634 (In re the Arbitration between Harris & 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 Harris & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 25 A.D.2d 634, 269 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on April 23, 1965, denying a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant (MVAIC), the arbitration is stayed pending a judicial determination of the issue whether the ear which allegedly injured petitioner-respondent was an insured vehicle, and the matter remanded to Special Term for the purpose of such determination. The insurer of the car alleged to have injured petitioner-respondent disclaimed coverage on the ground that at the time of the accident the ear was a stolen vehicle. Petitioner-respondent then proceeded against MVAIC pursuant to the New York Automobile Accident Indemnification Endorsement contained in his own policy. MVAIC questions that the offending ear “was truly a stolen vehicle” and seeks to have the issue judicially determined and in the interim to stay the arbitration which petitioner-respondent has demanded. Matter of MV AIC [Malone] (16 N Y 2d 1027) sustains its right to such relief.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Order entered on April 23, 1965, denying a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant (MVAIC), the arbitration is stayed pending a judicial determination of the issue whether the ear which allegedly injured petitioner-respondent was an insured vehicle, and the matter remanded to Special Term for the purpose of such determination. The insurer of the car alleged to have injured petitioner-respondent disclaimed coverage on the ground that at the time of the accident the ear was a stolen vehicle. Petitioner-respondent then proceeded against MVAIC pursuant to the New York Automobile Accident Indemnification Endorsement contained in his own policy. MVAIC questions that the offending ear “was truly a stolen vehicle” and seeks to have the issue judicially determined and in the interim to stay the arbitration which petitioner-respondent has demanded. Matter of MV AIC [Malone] (16 N Y 2d 1027) sustains its right to such relief.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 634, 269 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-harris-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1966.