Insinga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Insinga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

265 A.D.2d 411, 696 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an arbitration proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered January 6, 1998, which granted the application of the respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to vacate an arbitration award dated April 23, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly vacated the arbitration award based on the misconduct of the petitioner’s attorneys. The April 19, 1996, arbitration demand was served on the respondent, [412] rather than on its attorneys, and was hidden among voluminous other documents to prevent the respondent from contesting the issue of arbitrability (see, Rider Ins. Co. v Marino, 84 AD2d 832; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Monroe], 75 AD2d 765). In addition, the petitioner failed to comply with a prior order of the same court, dated October 23, 1996, requiring the completion of discovery before arbitration. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an arbitration proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered January 6, 1998, which granted the application of the respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to vacate an arbitration award dated April 23, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly vacated the arbitration award based on the misconduct of the petitioner’s attorneys. The April 19, 1996, arbitration demand was served on the respondent, [412] rather than on its attorneys, and was hidden among voluminous other documents to prevent the respondent from contesting the issue of arbitrability (see, Rider Ins. Co. v Marino, 84 AD2d 832; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Monroe], 75 AD2d 765). In addition, the petitioner failed to comply with a prior order of the same court, dated October 23, 1996, requiring the completion of discovery before arbitration. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Insinga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 265 A.D.2d 411, 696 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 411 (Insinga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related