Transportation Insurance v. Mueller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Transportation Insurance v. Mueller

268 A.D.2d 526, 701 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 675

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 526 (Transportation Insurance v. Mueller) 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

Transportation Insurance v. Mueller, 268 A.D.2d 526, 701 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated December 18, 1998, which, in effect, granted the respondent’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated December 8, 1997, granting the petition upon the respondent’s default in appearing, and directed the parties to proceed with the arbitration.

Ordered that the order dated December 18, 1998, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated December 8, 1997, is reinstated.

It is well settled that a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Shaw, 222 AD2d 581). Here, the respondent’s motion failed to establish these requirements. In any event, the petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration, as the offset provision is enforceable (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219). The fact that the offset provision was not contained in the declaration page of the policy would not warrant a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v O’Haire, 247 AD2d 387; cf., 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [a] [2] [requiring offset provision to be on declaration page of policies effective after Oct. 1, 1993]). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 underinsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated December 18, 1998, which, in effect, granted the respondent’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated December 8, 1997, granting the petition upon the respondent’s default in appearing, and directed the parties to proceed with the arbitration.

Ordered that the order dated December 18, 1998, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated December 8, 1997, is reinstated.

It is well settled that a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Shaw, 222 AD2d 581). Here, the respondent’s motion failed to establish these requirements. In any event, the petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration, as the offset provision is enforceable (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219). The fact that the offset provision was not contained in the declaration page of the policy would not warrant a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v O’Haire, 247 AD2d 387; cf., 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [a] [2] [requiring offset provision to be on declaration page of policies effective after Oct. 1, 1993]). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 526, 701 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/transportation-insurance-v-mueller-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack