Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ogunro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ogunro

119 A.D.2d 560, 500 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55487

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

DecidedApril 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 560 (Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ogunro) 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

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ogunro, 119 A.D.2d 560, 500 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated June 26, 1984, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing an arbitration award, a court will not set it aside for errors of law or fact (see, Matter of Garcia v Federal [561]*561Ins. Co., 46 NY2d 1040) unless the award is so irrational as to require vacatur (see, Cohn v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 942). While an affirmance is indicated at bar, because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the law, which was upheld by the Master Arbitrator, cannot be said to be beyond the bounds of rationality (see, Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224), our own interpretation would be that neither the assigned risk plan statute or rules (Insurance Law § 5301 et seq.; New York Automobile Insurance Plan Rules) nor the statute applicable to premium finance companies (Banking Law § 576) would impose the same obligation upon a premium finance company which is imposed upon an insurer to notify the insured of his right to seek a review of a cancellation of his policy (see, Ward v Gresham, 59 NY2d 878; cf. Daniel v Rivera, 93 AD2d 877, affd 60 NY2d 662). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated June 26, 1984, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing an arbitration award, a court will not set it aside for errors of law or fact (see, Matter of Garcia v Federal [561]*561Ins. Co., 46 NY2d 1040) unless the award is so irrational as to require vacatur (see, Cohn v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 942). While an affirmance is indicated at bar, because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the law, which was upheld by the Master Arbitrator, cannot be said to be beyond the bounds of rationality (see, Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224), our own interpretation would be that neither the assigned risk plan statute or rules (Insurance Law § 5301 et seq.; New York Automobile Insurance Plan Rules) nor the statute applicable to premium finance companies (Banking Law § 576) would impose the same obligation upon a premium finance company which is imposed upon an insurer to notify the insured of his right to seek a review of a cancellation of his policy (see, Ward v Gresham, 59 NY2d 878; cf. Daniel v Rivera, 93 AD2d 877, affd 60 NY2d 662). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 560, 500 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-property-casualty-insurance-v-ogunro-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack