New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Narine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Narine

256 A.D.2d 468, 683 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 468 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Narine) 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 Insurance v. Narine, 256 A.D.2d 468, 683 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, John Deere Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated December 1, 1997, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner met its initial burden of proving that the alleged offending vehicle was insured by the appellant, John Deere Insurance Company, at the time of the accident (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fenelon, 202 AD2d 436). Thus, the burden shifted to the appellant, as the party seeking to disclaim coverage, to prove that it did not insure the offending vehicle at the time of the accident (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fenelon, supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to meet this burden. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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, John Deere Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated December 1, 1997, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner met its initial burden of proving that the alleged offending vehicle was insured by the appellant, John Deere Insurance Company, at the time of the accident (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fenelon, 202 AD2d 436). Thus, the burden shifted to the appellant, as the party seeking to disclaim coverage, to prove that it did not insure the offending vehicle at the time of the accident (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fenelon, supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to meet this burden. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 468, 683 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-narine-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack