Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Johannesen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Johannesen

273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6259

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

DecidedJune 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 237 (Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Johannesen) 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

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Johannesen, 273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), entered May 12, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the evidence supports the court’s determination that the respondent was a “resident of the same household” as the holder of a policy issued by the petitioner (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Getter, 218 AD2d 797). Thus, the respondent was an insured person for purposes of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the subject policy. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), entered May 12, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the evidence supports the court’s determination that the respondent was a “resident of the same household” as the holder of a policy issued by the petitioner (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Getter, 218 AD2d 797). Thus, the respondent was an insured person for purposes of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the subject policy. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-mutual-indemnity-insurance-v-johannesen-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack