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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

29 A.D.2d 936, 290 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174

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

DecidedApril 25, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 936 (In re the Arbitration between Murino & 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 Murino & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 29 A.D.2d 936, 290 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on December 15, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant against respondent-respondent, the matter is remanded to Special Term for a hearing to determine whether the disclaimer by respondent-respondent was valid, and the arbitration is stayed pending such determination. Sufficient controversy exists concerning the time of receipt of notice of the accident by the insurer to preclude a finding on that issue without a trial. Special Term’s exclusive reliance on the insurer’s version of the time of receipt was error in view of the factual statements by the other parties indicative of earlier notification. The insurer’s contention regarding waiver is likewise a matter to be reserved for hearing. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered on December 15, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant against respondent-respondent, the matter is remanded to Special Term for a hearing to determine whether the disclaimer by respondent-respondent was valid, and the arbitration is stayed pending such determination. Sufficient controversy exists concerning the time of receipt of notice of the accident by the insurer to preclude a finding on that issue without a trial. Special Term’s exclusive reliance on the insurer’s version of the time of receipt was error in view of the factual statements by the other parties indicative of earlier notification. The insurer’s contention regarding waiver is likewise a matter to be reserved for hearing. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 936, 290 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-murino-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1968.