Travelers Property & Casualty Co. of America v. Mayen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Travelers Property & Casualty Co. of America v. Mayen

82 A.D.3d 402, 917 N.Y.2d 854

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 402 (Travelers Property & Casualty Co. of America v. Mayen) 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

Travelers Property & Casualty Co. of America v. Mayen, 82 A.D.3d 402, 917 N.Y.2d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court properly denied the request for a permanent stay of arbitration, since petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof that a hit-and-run accident did not occur (Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Greaney — National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh], 156 AD2d 154, 155 [1989]). The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of respondent’s co'worker who witnessed another vehicle hit respondent’s car, showed that respondent was indeed involved in a hit-and-run accident (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Killakey, 78 NY2d 325 [1991]). Although the police accident report indicated that respondent told the responding officer that the crash was the result of a blown out tire, the court reasonably attributed this statement to the fact that respondent was falling in and out of consciousness at the accident scene. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Supreme Court properly denied the request for a permanent stay of arbitration, since petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof that a hit-and-run accident did not occur (Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Greaney — National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh], 156 AD2d 154, 155 [1989]). The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of respondent’s co'worker who witnessed another vehicle hit respondent’s car, showed that respondent was indeed involved in a hit-and-run accident (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Killakey, 78 NY2d 325 [1991]). Although the police accident report indicated that respondent told the responding officer that the crash was the result of a blown out tire, the court reasonably attributed this statement to the fact that respondent was falling in and out of consciousness at the accident scene. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 402, 917 N.Y.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-property-casualty-co-of-america-v-mayen-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack