Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ramos

22 A.D.3d 757, 802 N.Y.S.2d 379

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 757 (Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ramos) 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

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ramos, 22 A.D.3d 757, 802 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated August 17, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners did not make a prima facie case showing of their entitlement to a stay of the demand of the respondent Carmen V Ramos to arbitrate her claim for underinsured motor[758]*758ist benefits under her insurance policy with the petitioners. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition (see Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Quintero, 305 AD2d 684 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]).

The petitioners’ contention that Ramos violated the provisions of her insurance policy by failing to properly safeguard the petitioners’ subrogation rights was improperly raised for the first time in their reply papers (see Sanz v Discount Auto, 10 AD3d 395 [2004]; Matter of Ramsey v City of New York, 8 AD3d 392 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Skelós and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated August 17, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners did not make a prima facie case showing of their entitlement to a stay of the demand of the respondent Carmen V Ramos to arbitrate her claim for underinsured motor[758]*758ist benefits under her insurance policy with the petitioners. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition (see Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Quintero, 305 AD2d 684 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]).

The petitioners’ contention that Ramos violated the provisions of her insurance policy by failing to properly safeguard the petitioners’ subrogation rights was improperly raised for the first time in their reply papers (see Sanz v Discount Auto, 10 AD3d 395 [2004]; Matter of Ramsey v City of New York, 8 AD3d 392 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Skelós and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 757, 802 N.Y.S.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermens-mutual-casualty-co-v-ramos-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack