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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

19 A.D.2d 802, 243 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 802 (In re the Arbitration between Porteck & 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 Porteck & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 19 A.D.2d 802, 243 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 24, 1962, denying respondent-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; the matter is remanded for a hearing upon the issues of coverage raised by respondent-appellant; and arbitration is stayed pending determination of such issues. As petitioner-respondent’s notice of intention to arbitrate fails to meet the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act, the 10-day limitation period therein provided is inapplicable (Matter of Double E Food Markets v. Beatson, 18 A D 2d 976; and, see, CPLR, § 7503, subd. [e]). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 24, 1962, denying respondent-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; the matter is remanded for a hearing upon the issues of coverage raised by respondent-appellant; and arbitration is stayed pending determination of such issues. As petitioner-respondent’s notice of intention to arbitrate fails to meet the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act, the 10-day limitation period therein provided is inapplicable (Matter of Double E Food Markets v. Beatson, 18 A D 2d 976; and, see, CPLR, § 7503, subd. [e]). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 802, 243 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-porteck-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1963.