Utica Mutual Insurance v. Leconte

3 A.D.3d 534, 770 N.Y.S.2d 750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 534 (Utica Mutual Insurance v. Leconte) 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
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Leconte, 3 A.D.3d 534, 770 N.Y.S.2d 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[535]*535In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), entered November 25, 2002, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether there was physical contact between the respondent’s vehicle and the alleged “hit-and-run” vehicle.

Physical contact is a prerequisite to the applicability of the uninsured motorist endorsement in the insured’s policy (see Insurance Law § 5217; Matter of Great N. Ins. Co. v Ballinger, 303 AD2d 503, 504 [2003]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes, 289 AD2d 495, 496 [2001]; Matter of Maryland Cas. Co. v Piasecki, 235 AD2d 423, 424 [1997]; Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Shaw, 222 AD2d 581 [1995]). When there is a triable issue of fact with respect to whether a claimant’s vehicle had physical contact with an alleged “hit-and-run” vehicle, the appropriate procedure is to stay the arbitration pending a determination on that issue (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes, supra).

In support of its petition to stay arbitration, the petitioner submitted a police accident report wherein the respondent told the reporting officer that an unknown vehicle “cut him off.” In opposition to the petition, the respondent offered his affidavit wherein he stated that his car was “suddenly struck on the driver’s side” by an unidentified car which left the scene. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact with respect to physical contact, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on that issue (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes, supra; Matter of Maryland Cas. Co. v Piasecki, supra). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Allstate Insurance v. Carraro
130 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Merchants Preferred Ins. Co. v. Waldo
125 A.D.3d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Allstate Insurance v. Aizin
102 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Thomas
47 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rojas v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
37 A.D.3d 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Newark Insurance v. Caruso
14 A.D.3d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 534, 770 N.Y.S.2d 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utica-mutual-insurance-v-leconte-nyappdiv-2004.