Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

150 A.D.2d 215, 541 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6529

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

DecidedMay 16, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 215 (Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual 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

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 150 A.D.2d 215, 541 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered on or about August 8, 1988, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the monetary award of $10,000, and except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Respondent Nationwide, having participated in the arbitration whose result it seeks to vacate, is limited at this stage of the proceedings to obtaining vacatur upon one of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (b). The ground upon which it primarily relies, however, i.e., that petitioner was not a signatory to the agreement pursuant to which the arbitration was conducted, is not among those enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b), and, accordingly, cannot at this stage be entertained as a basis for the award’s vacatur. (See, Hodges Intl. v Rembrandt Fabrics, 44 AD2d 77; see also, Matter of Aaacon Auto Transp. [State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.], 41 NY2d 951.) The question should [216]*216have been litigated, if at all, before the parties proceeded to arbitration. (See, supra; CPLR 7503 [b].)

We modify only to the extent of vacating the court’s confirmation of a purported $10,000 monetary award. No monetary award was made by the arbitrator, hence none could have been properly confirmed by the court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered on or about August 8, 1988, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the monetary award of $10,000, and except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Respondent Nationwide, having participated in the arbitration whose result it seeks to vacate, is limited at this stage of the proceedings to obtaining vacatur upon one of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (b). The ground upon which it primarily relies, however, i.e., that petitioner was not a signatory to the agreement pursuant to which the arbitration was conducted, is not among those enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b), and, accordingly, cannot at this stage be entertained as a basis for the award’s vacatur. (See, Hodges Intl. v Rembrandt Fabrics, 44 AD2d 77; see also, Matter of Aaacon Auto Transp. [State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.], 41 NY2d 951.) The question should [216]*216have been litigated, if at all, before the parties proceeded to arbitration. (See, supra; CPLR 7503 [b].)

We modify only to the extent of vacating the court’s confirmation of a purported $10,000 monetary award. No monetary award was made by the arbitrator, hence none could have been properly confirmed by the court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 215, 541 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack