Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Anemone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Anemone

271 A.D.2d 690, 707 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 690 (Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Anemone) 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

Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Anemone, 271 A.D.2d 690, 707 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Joseph Anemone appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated February 24, 1999, as granted the petition to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of whether there had been physical contact between the vehicle that he was driving and the alleged hit-and-run vehicle.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the appellant’s demand for arbitration complied with the statutory requirements of CPLR 7503 (c). The issue of physical contact with the [691]*691uninsured vehicle relates to whether certain conditions of coverage were satisfied. Therefore, the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration should have been brought within the 20-day limitation period set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 NY2d 1082; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Rosa, 253 AD2d 494; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Carsley, 243 AD2d 474). The proceeding was commenced more than four months after the demand was served, and thus, was untimely (see, Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Stekardis, 34 NY2d 182, 185-186). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 of an uninsured motorist claim, Joseph Anemone appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated February 24, 1999, as granted the petition to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of whether there had been physical contact between the vehicle that he was driving and the alleged hit-and-run vehicle.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the appellant’s demand for arbitration complied with the statutory requirements of CPLR 7503 (c). The issue of physical contact with the [691]*691uninsured vehicle relates to whether certain conditions of coverage were satisfied. Therefore, the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration should have been brought within the 20-day limitation period set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 NY2d 1082; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Rosa, 253 AD2d 494; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Carsley, 243 AD2d 474). The proceeding was commenced more than four months after the demand was served, and thus, was untimely (see, Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Stekardis, 34 NY2d 182, 185-186). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 690, 707 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-mutual-insurance-v-anemone-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack