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

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 411 (Insinga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance) 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

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

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]*412rather 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]*412rather 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 411, 696 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insinga-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack