In re the Arbitration between ITT Hartford Insurance & Churchward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between ITT Hartford Insurance & Churchward

249 A.D.2d 86, 671 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026

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

DecidedApril 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 86 (In re the Arbitration between ITT Hartford Insurance & Churchward) 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 ITT Hartford Insurance & Churchward, 249 A.D.2d 86, 671 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, in which hospital records show respondent to have been severely injured and to have had significantly compromised memory in the aftermath of his accident, the conditions precedent to arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim were sufficiently satisfied by his submission of a sworn statement to petitioner when his memory returned, some five months subsequent to the accident, and by his submission to petitioner of medical records and a police report which, taken together with his sworn statement, established that respondent’s injuries did in fact result from “physical contact” between petitioner and a hit-and-run vehicle. In this latter regard, the failure of the police report to note that there had been “physical contact” is entirely understandable in light of respondent’s well-documented condition immediately following the accident. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, in which hospital records show respondent to have been severely injured and to have had significantly compromised memory in the aftermath of his accident, the conditions precedent to arbitration of respondent’s uninsured motorist claim were sufficiently satisfied by his submission of a sworn statement to petitioner when his memory returned, some five months subsequent to the accident, and by his submission to petitioner of medical records and a police report which, taken together with his sworn statement, established that respondent’s injuries did in fact result from “physical contact” between petitioner and a hit-and-run vehicle. In this latter regard, the failure of the police report to note that there had been “physical contact” is entirely understandable in light of respondent’s well-documented condition immediately following the accident. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 86, 671 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-itt-hartford-insurance-churchward-nyappdiv-1998.