Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Napolitano

232 A.D.2d 561, 648 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10450
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 561 (Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Napolitano) 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. Napolitano, 232 A.D.2d 561, 648 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated January 3, 1996, as denied its application to stay arbitration.

[562]*562Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the petition to permanently stay arbitration is granted.

The respondent was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle owned by persons insured by the petitioner. The subject insurance policy required, inter alia, that "the insured or someone acting on his behalf’ report the accident within 24 hours or as soon as reasonably possible to a "police, peace or judicial officer or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.” The respondent failed to do so, and further failed to file with the petitioner within 90 days thereafter a statement under oath indicating that she had a cause of action arising out of the accident. The failure of the respondent to comply with these requirements in the absence of a valid excuse vitiates coverage (see, Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jimenez], 78 NY2d 1054).

Moreover, contrary to the respondent’s contentions, the record indicates that the petitioner disclaimed coverage in a timely manner upon first learning of the grounds for such disclaimer (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Frank], 44 NY2d 897). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ostapenko
2019 NY Slip Op 7586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Laldharry
130 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Government Employees Insurance v. Bartlett
112 A.D.3d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Seneca Insurance v. W.S. Distribution, Inc.
40 A.D.3d 1068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Allstate Insurance v. Estate of Abdul Aziz
17 A.D.3d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess, Inc. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
1 A.D.3d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Legion Insurance v. Estevez
281 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D.2d 561, 648 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-mutual-indemnity-insurance-v-napolitano-nyappdiv-1996.