State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. King

304 A.D.2d 390, 756 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869

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

DecidedApril 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 390 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. King) 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 Mutual Automobile Insurance v. King, 304 A.D.2d 390, 756 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2002, which, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to the prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, dated August 21, 2001, but entered March 20, 2002, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment granting a stay of the arbitration sought by respondent pursuant to an uninsured motorist endorsement, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order and judgment (one paper) entered March 20, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

While the motion court purported to deny renewal and reargument, it appears that the merits of the motion were addressed and that the court, in effect, granted reargument and renewal, even though it ultimately adhered to its original determination (see Freitas v New York City Tr. Auth., 297 AD2d 270 [2002]).

The denial of vacatur was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the unexplained delay of nearly three years in seeking such relief (see Credit Car Leasing Corp. v Elan Group Corp., 185 AD2d 109 [1992]; Komlosi v State of New York, 288 AD2d 188 [2001]) and the failure to offer proof of compliance with the policy provision requiring a sworn notice of claim (see Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Purvis, 198 AD2d 502 [1993]) or any excuse for such noncompliance (see Galaxy Ins. Co. v 1454 Nicholas Ave. Assoc., 276 AD2d 424 [2000]). Absent a valid excuse, there was no coverage (see Paramount Ins. Co. v Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235, 239 [2002]), and, thus, no basis for any framed issue hearing.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2002, which, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to the prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, dated August 21, 2001, but entered March 20, 2002, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment granting a stay of the arbitration sought by respondent pursuant to an uninsured motorist endorsement, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order and judgment (one paper) entered March 20, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

While the motion court purported to deny renewal and reargument, it appears that the merits of the motion were addressed and that the court, in effect, granted reargument and renewal, even though it ultimately adhered to its original determination (see Freitas v New York City Tr. Auth., 297 AD2d 270 [2002]).

The denial of vacatur was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the unexplained delay of nearly three years in seeking such relief (see Credit Car Leasing Corp. v Elan Group Corp., 185 AD2d 109 [1992]; Komlosi v State of New York, 288 AD2d 188 [2001]) and the failure to offer proof of compliance with the policy provision requiring a sworn notice of claim (see Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Purvis, 198 AD2d 502 [1993]) or any excuse for such noncompliance (see Galaxy Ins. Co. v 1454 Nicholas Ave. Assoc., 276 AD2d 424 [2000]). Absent a valid excuse, there was no coverage (see Paramount Ins. Co. v Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235, 239 [2002]), and, thus, no basis for any framed issue hearing.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 390, 756 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-king-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack