Lyons v. National Union Fire Insurance

208 A.D.2d 540, 617 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 3, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 540 (Lyons v. National Union Fire 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
Lyons v. National Union Fire Insurance, 208 A.D.2d 540, 617 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), entered February 22, 1993, which granted the petition and, in effect, denied the appellant’s cross application to reduce the award by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by granting the appellant’s cross application, deleting the provision granting the petitioner’s application to confirm the award in its entirety, and substituting therefor a provision granting the application only to the extent of awarding the petitioner the principal amount of $52,088.15 plus prejudgment interest; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

The insurance policy at bar expressly provides that recovery under the supplemental uninsured motorist endorsement be reduced by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid or payable. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to an offset for the benefits paid to the petitioner (see, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 894). The appellant [541]*541did not waive its right to the offset nor is it estopped from asserting its right by its counsel’s representation that no workers’ compensation lien existed. There was, in fact, no workers’ compensation lien. The contractual reduction in recovery does not constitute a lien (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [1]).

The petitioner is, however, entitled to prejudgment interest on the reduced amount from the date of the award (see, CPLR 5002). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Goldberger v. Fischer
54 A.D.3d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nationwide Insurance v. Dean
240 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Stokes
215 A.D.2d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Zurich Insurance v. Wilburn
212 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 A.D.2d 540, 617 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyons-v-national-union-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.