State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Marshall

275 A.D.2d 417, 712 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8836

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated [418] August 23, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). Here, the court’s determination that the appellant was not involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated [418] August 23, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). Here, the court’s determination that the appellant was not involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Marshall, 275 A.D.2d 417, 712 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 417 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Marshall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related