State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe

250 A.D.2d 771, 672 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 771 (State-Wide Insurance v. Rowe) 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-Wide Insurance v. Rowe, 250 A.D.2d 771, 672 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered August 4, 1997, which denied its application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration as untimely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 NY2d 1082; Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Hancock, 183 AD2d 831).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Hancock, supra, at 832). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, 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 stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered August 4, 1997, which denied its application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration as untimely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 NY2d 1082; Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Hancock, 183 AD2d 831).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Hancock, supra, at 832). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 771, 672 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-wide-insurance-v-rowe-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack