New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. v. Marchesi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. v. Marchesi

238 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108

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

DecidedApril 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 135 (New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. v. Marchesi) 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

New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. v. Marchesi, 238 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration of respondent’s underinsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the result directing the parties to proceed to arbitration, but not for the reason given by the motion court, which was that the issue of whether respondent’s notice of claim was given "as soon as practicable” necessarily requires contract interpretation and is therefore for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Rather, the arbitrability of the timeliness of the notice is a threshold judicial issue that depends on the scope of the arbitration agreement in the subject policy, which is not to be found in the record. As petitioner insurer was the party seeking a stay of arbitration, the burden was on it to make a record justifying that relief (see, Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Donero, 121 AD2d 325), which, in the absence of the arbitration agreement, it failed to do. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration of respondent’s underinsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the result directing the parties to proceed to arbitration, but not for the reason given by the motion court, which was that the issue of whether respondent’s notice of claim was given "as soon as practicable” necessarily requires contract interpretation and is therefore for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Rather, the arbitrability of the timeliness of the notice is a threshold judicial issue that depends on the scope of the arbitration agreement in the subject policy, which is not to be found in the record. As petitioner insurer was the party seeking a stay of arbitration, the burden was on it to make a record justifying that relief (see, Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Donero, 121 AD2d 325), which, in the absence of the arbitration agreement, it failed to do. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-ins-v-marchesi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack