New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Accardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Accardo

298 A.D.2d 459, 748 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9831

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered January 17, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where, as here, the determination turns largely upon the credibility of the lone witness (see Matter of CGU Ins. Co. v Velez, 287 AD2d 624; Matter of American Home Assur. Co. v Munoz, 287 AD2d 619). The Supreme Court’s determination that the presumption of permissive use was overcome was supported by substantial evidence (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388; Matter of Allstate Indem. Co. v Nelson, 285 AD2d 545).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions are academic. Altman, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and H. Miller, 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 stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered January 17, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where, as here, the determination turns largely upon the credibility of the lone witness (see Matter of CGU Ins. Co. v Velez, 287 AD2d 624; Matter of American Home Assur. Co. v Munoz, 287 AD2d 619). The Supreme Court’s determination that the presumption of permissive use was overcome was supported by substantial evidence (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388; Matter of Allstate Indem. Co. v Nelson, 285 AD2d 545).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions are academic. Altman, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Accardo, 298 A.D.2d 459, 748 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

298 A.D.2d 459 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Accardo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related