State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sweet-Roy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sweet-Roy

44 A.D.3d 1058, 843 N.Y.S.2d 839

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 1058 (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sweet-Roy) 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

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sweet-Roy, 44 A.D.3d 1058, 843 N.Y.S.2d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the proposed additional respondent Allstate Indemnity Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated January 4, 2007, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated October 18, 2006, entered upon its consent, granting the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion, inter alia, to [1059]*1059vacate the order entered upon its consent. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, 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 permanently stay arbitration, the proposed additional respondent Allstate Indemnity Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated January 4, 2007, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated October 18, 2006, entered upon its consent, granting the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion, inter alia, to [1059]*1059vacate the order entered upon its consent. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 1058, 843 N.Y.S.2d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-fire-casualty-co-v-sweet-roy-nyappdiv-2007.