Tyler v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyler v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 588, 146 A.D.3d 712, 45 N.Y.S.3d 784

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 2017·No. 653591/14 2918 2917·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which confirmed the report of the special referee and granted the petition for leave to commence an action against respondent (MVAIC) pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 22, 2016, which denied MVAIC’s motion to reject the report of the special referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By failing to object to the scope of the reference ordered by *713 the motion court or at the hearing, MVAIC waived its claim that the issue before the special referee was incorrectly limited and that the motion court should have broadened the issue (see Adelaide Prods., Inc. v BKN Intl. AG, 51 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2008]; Hexcel Corp. v Hercules Inc., 291 AD2d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]). The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying MVAIC’s motion to reject the referee’s report on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Fein-man, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which confirmed the report of the special referee and granted the petition for leave to commence an action against respondent (MVAIC) pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 22, 2016, which denied MVAIC’s motion to reject the report of the special referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By failing to object to the scope of the reference ordered by *713 the motion court or at the hearing, MVAIC waived its claim that the issue before the special referee was incorrectly limited and that the motion court should have broadened the issue (see Adelaide Prods., Inc. v BKN Intl. AG, 51 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2008]; Hexcel Corp. v Hercules Inc., 291 AD2d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]). The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying MVAIC’s motion to reject the referee’s report on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Fein-man, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Tyler v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 588, 146 A.D.3d 712, 45 N.Y.S.3d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 588 (Tyler v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related