Rutherford v. Government Employees Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rutherford v. Government Employees Insurance

37 A.D.2d 600, 323 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861

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

DecidedJune 14, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 600 (Rutherford v. Government Employees Insurance) 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

Rutherford v. Government Employees Insurance, 37 A.D.2d 600, 323 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration sought by respondent, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 2, 1970, which denied the application. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a hearing and a new determination. The questions of fact have not been considered. We are of the opinion that a triable issue of fact is presented on the question of whether a hit and run accident occurred within the meaning of section 617 of the Insurance Law (cf. MV AIC v. Eisenberg, 18 N Y 2d 1; Matter of Braddy [Continental Ins. Co.], 29 A D 2d 523). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration sought by respondent, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 2, 1970, which denied the application. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a hearing and a new determination. The questions of fact have not been considered. We are of the opinion that a triable issue of fact is presented on the question of whether a hit and run accident occurred within the meaning of section 617 of the Insurance Law (cf. MV AIC v. Eisenberg, 18 N Y 2d 1; Matter of Braddy [Continental Ins. Co.], 29 A D 2d 523). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 600, 323 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutherford-v-government-employees-insurance-nyappdiv-1971.