State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe

228 A.D.2d 606, 644 N.Y.2d 626, 644 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly dismissed this proceeding because the petitioner’s application for a stay was made more than 20 days after the notice of intention to arbitrate was served (see, CPLR 7503 [c]). The petitioner’s contention that [607] the statutory time period does not apply under the circumstances of this case is without merit (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 88 NY2d 827).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for renewal which was based on new arguments and additional facts that were known to the petitioner at the time its original application was considered (see, Marino v Brown, 225 AD2d 529). In any event, those additional facts demonstrated that the untimeliness of the petitioner’s application was the result of its own employee’s neglect, not any deception on the part of the respondent (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Barbera, 117 AD2d 801). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly dismissed this proceeding because the petitioner’s application for a stay was made more than 20 days after the notice of intention to arbitrate was served (see, CPLR 7503 [c]). The petitioner’s contention that [607] the statutory time period does not apply under the circumstances of this case is without merit (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 88 NY2d 827).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for renewal which was based on new arguments and additional facts that were known to the petitioner at the time its original application was considered (see, Marino v Brown, 225 AD2d 529). In any event, those additional facts demonstrated that the untimeliness of the petitioner’s application was the result of its own employee’s neglect, not any deception on the part of the respondent (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Barbera, 117 AD2d 801). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe, 228 A.D.2d 606, 644 N.Y.2d 626, 644 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 606 (State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related