New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Paillant

269 A.D.2d 451, 702 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1402
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 451 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Paillant) 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. Paillant, 269 A.D.2d 451, 702 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated January 7, 1999, which granted the petition and deemed it to have insured a vehicle owned by Roxanne J. Cummings.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the joinder of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Roxanne J. Cummings, and Leonard Roy Griffith as necessary parties, and a new determination of the petition in accordance herewith.

The documents submitted by the parties raised issues of fact as to whether the offending vehicle was uninsured within the meaning of the policy issued by the petitioner New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company to the respondent Ambroise Paillant, and whether the alleged insurer of the offending vehicle, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), had properly disclaimed coverage (see, Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Sillman, 266 AD2d 551; Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Beliard, 256 AD2d 579). Therefore, it was improper for the Supreme Court to determine that the offending vehicle was insured without the joinder of State Farm and the additional proposed respondents and, if necessary, a hearing (see, Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Sillman, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Vazquez, 249 AD2d 312; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Sadiq, 237 AD2d 605; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Boiano, 199 AD2d 314). 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

Related

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Matera
304 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Eagle Insurance v. Lucero
276 A.D.2d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 451, 702 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-paillant-nyappdiv-2000.